FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page i 
Report Documentation Page Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington

VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

20 APR 2009 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FY 2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Department of Defense,Washington,DC

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT 

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT

Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

210

19a. NAME OF

RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page ii 

This page is intentionally left blank.
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page iii 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page iv 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page v 

Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose....................................................................................................................................................1

Scope .......................................................................................................................................................1

Background ..............................................................................................................................................2

Current State of Unmanned Systems .................................................................................................2

Congressional Direction ......................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2. Vision for the Future Development and Employment of Unmanned Systems 

within the Department of Defense............................................................................................................. 7

Unmanned Systems Applied to Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)................................................................7

Battle Space Awareness ..........................................................................................................................8

Force Application....................................................................................................................................10

Protection ...............................................................................................................................................11

Logistics .................................................................................................................................................12

Building Partnerships .............................................................................................................................13

Force Support.........................................................................................................................................13

Command and Control (C2) ...................................................................................................................14

Net Centric .............................................................................................................................................14

Unmanned Systems Performance Envelope .........................................................................................27

Performance Across Domains ...............................................................................................................27

A Discussion of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability for Unmanned Systems ............................28

Performance Specific to Domains..........................................................................................................29

Air Domain Specific Performance Attributes..........................................................................................30

Ground Domain Specific Performance Attributes ..................................................................................31

Maritime Domain Specific Performance Attributes ................................................................................31

Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................................33

Chapter 3. Unmanned Systems Path Forward....................................................................................... 37

Methodology for Analysis .......................................................................................................................37

Strengths and Opportunities ..................................................................................................................37

Air Domain..............................................................................................................................................37

Ground Domain......................................................................................................................................37

Maritime Domain ....................................................................................................................................38

Challenges and Risks ............................................................................................................................39

Recommended Actions ..........................................................................................................................43

Chapter 4. Advancing Unmanned Systems Technologies ................................................................... 47

Unmanned Systems Technology Enablers............................................................................................47

Aligning Common Technologies ............................................................................................................47

Key/Pacing Technologies.......................................................................................................................48

Air Domain..............................................................................................................................................48

Ground Domain......................................................................................................................................49

Maritime Domain ....................................................................................................................................49

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)................................................................................... 51
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page vi 

A.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems.........................................................................................................51

A.1.1 A160 Hummingbird...............................................................................................................51

A.1.2 Aerosonde ............................................................................................................................52

A.1.3 Aqua/Terra Puma.................................................................................................................53

A.1.4 Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle (BATMAV) – WASP III.......................................54

A.1.5 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) .....................55

A.1.6 Buster ...................................................................................................................................56

A.1.7 XM-156 Class I.....................................................................................................................57

A.1.8 Combat Medic Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for Resupply and Evacuation................58

A.1.9 FINDER ................................................................................................................................59

A.1.10 Global Observer ...................................................................................................................60

A.1.11 Improved Gnat Extended Range (I-Gnat-ER) “Warrior Alpha” / Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) Block 0.....................................................................................................61

A.1.12 Maverick ...............................................................................................................................62

A.1.13 MQ-1 Predator......................................................................................................................63

A.1.14 MQ-1C Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ER/MP) ................................................................64

A.1.15 MQ-5B Hunter ......................................................................................................................65

A.1.16 MQ-8 Fire Scout...................................................................................................................66

A.1.17 MQ-9 Reaper (formerly Predator B).....................................................................................67

A.1.18 Onyx Autonomously Guided Parafoil System ......................................................................68

A.1.19 RQ-11 Pathfinder Raven......................................................................................................69

A.1.20 RQ-14 Dragon Eye/Swift......................................................................................................70

A.1.21 RQ-15 Neptune ....................................................................................................................71

A.1.22 Gasoline Micro Air Vehicle (gMAV)......................................................................................72

A.1.23 RQ-4 Global Hawk ...............................................................................................................73

A.1.24 RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) .........................................................74

A.1.25 RQ-7 Shadow 200................................................................................................................75

A.1.26 ScanEagle ............................................................................................................................76

A.1.27 Silver Fox .............................................................................................................................77

A.1.28 Small Tactical UAS (STUAS)/Tier II UAS ............................................................................78

A.1.29 Tactical Mini-Unmanned Air Vehicle (TACMAV)..................................................................79

A.1.30 Unmanned Combat Aircraft System – Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D)............................80

A.1.31 Wasp ....................................................................................................................................81

A.1.32 XM 157 Class IV UAS ..........................................................................................................82

A.1.33 XPV-1 Tern...........................................................................................................................83

A.1.34 XPV-2 Mako .........................................................................................................................84

A.2 Unmanned Airship Systems .........................................................................................................85

A.2.1 Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory (AAFL)........................................................................85

A.2.2 Hybrid Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (HUAV) Persistent Elevated Reconnaissance 

Surveillance Intelligence Unmanned System (PERSIUS) ...................................................86

A.2.3 Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS)............................................................87

A.2.4 Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID)............................................................................88

A.2.5 Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform (REAP) ........................................................................89

A.2.6 Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS)............................................................................90

A.3 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Airspace Integration ..............................................................91
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page vii 

A.3.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................91

A.3.2 Background ..........................................................................................................................91

A.3.3 Command, Control, Communications ................................................................................101

A.3.4 Future Environment............................................................................................................102

A.3.5 Department of Defense (DoD) Organizations with Roles in Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) Airspace Integration.................................................................................................103

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) .............................................................................. 111

B.1 All-Purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS).........................................................................111

B.2 Anti-Personnel Mine Clearing System, Remote Control (MV-4B)..............................................112

B.3 Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) ....................................................................................................113

B.4 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV).................................................................................................114

B.5 Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (BEAR)................................................................................115

B.6 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) UGV (CUGV) ..........................................117

B.7 Crusher Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle ............................................................................118

B.8 Dragon Runner...........................................................................................................................119

B.9 Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle (TUGV) .............................................................120

B.10 Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) and MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) .....................................121

B.11 Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE)..................................................................................122

B.12 MK 3 MOD 0 Remote Ordnance Neutralization System (RONS) ..............................................123

B.13 MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)........................................................124

B.14 Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System (MDARS) ............................................125

B.15 Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot (MARCbot) .......................................................126

B.16 Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle (MULE)..........................................................127

B.17 Omni-Directional Inspection System (ODIS)..............................................................................128

B.18 Robo-Trencher ...........................................................................................................................129

B.19 Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation................................................................130

B.20 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) ................................................................................131

B.21 Throwbot.....................................................................................................................................132

B.22 Toughbot ....................................................................................................................................133

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) ............................................................................ 135

C.1 Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) .........................................................................................135

C.1.1 Fleet Class USVs ...............................................................................................................135

C.2 Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)......................................................................................138

C.2.1 Heavyweight UUVs ............................................................................................................138

C.2.2 Lightweight Vehicles (LWVs) .............................................................................................141

C.2.3 Man-Portable UUVs ...........................................................................................................143

Appendix D. Technology Enabler Data Sheets.................................................................................... 150

D.1 3D World Modeling.....................................................................................................................150

D.2 Active Signature Management ...................................................................................................150

D.3 Architecture Proprietary..............................................................................................................150

D.4 Artificial Muscle Systems............................................................................................................150

D.5 Automatically Deployed Communication Relays........................................................................151

D.6 Autonomous Robotic Capability Suite (ARCS) ..........................................................................151

D.7 Battery Powered - Long Endurance Power Source for Small UGVs .........................................152
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page viii 

D.8 Battlefield Extraction – Assist Robot (BEAR) .............................................................................152

D.9 Bio-mass Reactor Power............................................................................................................154

D.10 Biomimetic Human Detection.....................................................................................................154

D.11 BioRobotics ................................................................................................................................154

D.12 Bird Dog/Warfighter’s Associate.................................................................................................154

D.13 CENTAUR Ground Mobility System...........................................................................................155

D.14 Chemical Robots (ChemBots)....................................................................................................155

D.15 Collaborative Networked Autonomous Vehicles (CNAV)...........................................................156

D.16 Communications/Navigation Network Node (CN3)....................................................................156

D.17 Complex Terrain Mobility............................................................................................................156

D.18 Constrained Radio Frequency (RF) ...........................................................................................156

D.19 Cooperative Multi-Vehicle Road Network Search......................................................................157

D.20 Covert & Self-concealing Behaviors...........................................................................................157

D.21 Electromechanical/Hydraulic ......................................................................................................157

D.22 Extreme Weather Capable (Sensors, Electro-mechanical)........................................................158

D.23 Front End Robotics Enabling Near-Term Demonstration (FREND)...........................................158

D.24 Heterogeneous Airborne Reconnaissance Team (HART).........................................................158

D.25 Hierarchical Collaborative Behaviors .........................................................................................159

D.26 High Speed Intelligent Networked Communications..................................................................159

D.27 Highly Representative World Model...........................................................................................159

D.28 Human Detection on the Move...................................................................................................159

D.29 Human-Like Dexterity.................................................................................................................160

D.30 Hybrid Bio-mechanical Systems.................................................................................................160

D.31 Intelligent Frequency Selecting Radio Frequency (RF) .............................................................160

D.32 Intelligent Mobile Grenade .........................................................................................................161

D.33 Joint Convoy Active Safety System (JCASS) ............................................................................161

D.34 Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Networked Communications ............................................161

D.35 Ku MiniTCDL for STUAS/Tier II..................................................................................................162

D.36 Local Visualization......................................................................................................................162

D.37 Manipulator Dexterity..................................................................................................................162

D.38 Man-Portable ISR Robot ............................................................................................................163

D.39 Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) .............................................................................................................163

D.40 Modeling and Simulation ............................................................................................................164

D.41 Multi Dimensional Mobility Robot (MDMR) ................................................................................164

D.42 Multi-mission Modular Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and 

Nuclear (CBRN) Payloads Initiative ...........................................................................................164

D.43 Multi-modal Human Detection....................................................................................................165

D.44 Nano-Flapping Air Vehicle..........................................................................................................165

D.45 Navigation...................................................................................................................................165

D.46 Next Generation Power Resources............................................................................................167

D.47 Nightingale II – Integrated UAS/UGV System............................................................................167

D.48 Non-Radio Frequency (RF) Communications ............................................................................168

D.49 Opportunistic Communications ..................................................................................................168

D.50 Opportunistic Power Grazing .....................................................................................................168

D.51 Organic Air Vehicle – II (OAV-II) ................................................................................................169
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page ix 

D.52 Passive Signature Management ................................................................................................169

D.53 Rapid Eye ...................................................................................................................................169

D.54 Real-time High Fidelity World Modeling .....................................................................................169

D.55 Robotic Extraction, Evacuation and Enroute Combat Casualty Care (RE3C3).........................170

D.56 Robotic Force Health Protection Payloads for Unmanned Ground Vehicles.............................170

D.57 Safety Response (Anti-tampering) .............................................................................................171

D.58 Safety Response ........................................................................................................................171

D.59 Safety Response (CBRN) ..........................................................................................................171

D.60 Self-Forming Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Communications Network..............................172

D.61 Sense and Avoid (S&A)..............................................................................................................172

D.62 Sensors to Enable Robust Harsh-Weather Operations .............................................................172

D.63 Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare (SP2S)............................................................................173

D.64 Super Dexterity...........................................................................................................................173

D.65 Tactical Amphibious Ground Support System (TAGS) ..............................................................173

D.66 Vision of the Trauma Pod...........................................................................................................173

D.67 Voice Control..............................................................................................................................174

D.68 Vulture ........................................................................................................................................174

Appendix E. Joint Capability Area (JCA) Definitions .......................................................................... 176

Appendix F. Unmanned Systems Standards ....................................................................................... 178

F.1 Interoperability Requirements ....................................................................................................178

F.2 Unmanned Systems Standards..................................................................................................178

F.2.1 Unmanned Air Standards...................................................................................................180

F.2.2 Unmanned Ground Standards ...........................................................................................181

F.2.3 Unmanned Maritime Standards .........................................................................................181

Appendix G. Unmanned Systems Points of Contact .......................................................................... 182

Appendix H: Acronym List..................................................................................................................... 185
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page x 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page xi 

List of Tables and Figures 

Table 1. FY2009–15 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems ...............................................................4

Table 2. Density of Named Systems within Each JCA .................................................................................8

Table 3. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Battle Space Awareness ........................................9

Table 4. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Application..................................................10

Table 5. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Protection..............................................................12

Table 6. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Logistics................................................................13

Table 7. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Building Partnerships............................................13

Table 8. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Support.......................................................14

Table 9. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Command and Control .........................................14

Table 10. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Net-Centric..........................................................15

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping ............................................................................................................17

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping Continued...........................................................................................18

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping Continued...........................................................................................19

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping.....................................................................................................21

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping Continued ...................................................................................22

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping Continued ...................................................................................23

Figure 3. Maritime Domain JCA Mapping...................................................................................................25

Figure 3. Maritime Domain JCA Mapping Continued .................................................................................26

Figure 4. Performance Envelope Common to All Domains ........................................................................27

Figure 5. Air Domain Performance Envelope .............................................................................................31

Figure 6. Ground Domain Performance Envelope......................................................................................31

Figure 7. Maritime Domain Performance Envelope....................................................................................33

Table 11. Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................................36

Table 12. Recommended Actions...............................................................................................................45

Figure 8. Technology Enablers Common to All Domains...........................................................................48

Figure 9. Air Domain Technology Enablers ................................................................................................49

Figure 10. Ground Domain Technology Enablers ......................................................................................49

Figure A.1. Joint FAA/OSD Approach to Regulating UAS..........................................................................92

Figure A.2. U.S. Military Aircraft and UAS Class A Mishap Rates (Lifetime), 1986–2006 .........................93

Figure A.3. UAS and Airspace Classes of the NAS ...................................................................................95

Table A.1. Alignment of UAS Categories with FAA Regulations ................................................................95

Figure A.4. JUAS CONOPS UAS Categories.............................................................................................97

Figure A.5. JIPT Functional Organization.................................................................................................104

Figure A.6. Track 1 and Track 2 Strategies ..............................................................................................106

Figure A.7. Track 1, Track 2, and SC-203 ................................................................................................107

Table F.1. Organizations Developing Standards for Unmanned Systems ...............................................180
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page xii 

This page is intentionally left blank.
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In today’s military, unmanned systems are highly desired by combatant commanders (COCOMs) 

for their versatility and persistence. By performing tasks such as surveillance; signals 

intelligence (SIGINT); precision target designation; mine detection; and chemical, biological, 

radiological, nuclear (CBRN) reconnaissance, unmanned systems have made key contributions 

to the Global War on Terror (GWOT). As of October 2008, coalition unmanned aircraft systems 

(UAS) (exclusive of hand-launched systems) have flown almost 500,000 flight hours in support 

of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) have 

conducted over 30,000 missions, detecting and/or neutralizing over 15,000 improvised explosive 

devices (IEDs), and unmanned maritime systems (UMSs) have provided security to ports. 

In response to the Warfighter demand, the Department has continued to invest aggressively in 

developing unmanned systems and technologies. That investment has seen unmanned systems 

transformed from being primarily remote-operated, single-mission platforms into increasingly 

autonomous, multi-mission systems. The fielding of increasingly sophisticated reconnaissance, 

targeting, and weapons delivery technology has not only allowed unmanned systems to 

participate in shortening the “sensor to shooter” kill chain, but it has also allowed them to 

complete the chain by delivering precision weapons on target. This edition of the Unmanned 

Systems Roadmap attempts to translate the benefit of these systems and technologies into the 

resultant combat capability by mapping specific unmanned systems to their contributions to Joint 

Capability Areas (JCAs) such as Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, Force Support, and 

Logistics. 

As the Department of Defense (DoD) continues to develop and employ an increasingly 

sophisticated force of unmanned systems over the next 25 years (2009 to 2034), technologists, 

acquisition officials, and operational planners require a clear, coordinated plan for the evolution 

and transition of unmanned systems technology. This document incorporates a vision and 

strategy for UAS, UGVs, and UMSs (defined as unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) and 

unmanned surface vehicles (USVs)) that is focused on delivery of warfighting capability. Its 

overarching goal, in accordance with the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), is to focus military 

departments and defense agencies toward investments in unmanned systems and technologies 

that meet the prioritized capability needs of the Warfighter that include: 

1. Reconnaissance and Surveillance. This remains the number one COCOM priority for 

unmanned systems. While the demand for full-motion video (FMV) remains high, there is an 

increasing demand for wide-area search and multi-INT capability. Processing, Exploitation, 

and Dissemination (PED) remains a key area highlighting the need for interoperability. 

2. Target Identification and Designation. The ability to positively identify and precisely 

locate military targets in real-time is a current shortfall with DoD UAS. Reducing latency 

and increasing precision for GPS-guided weapons is required. 

3. Counter-Mine and Explosive Ordnance Disposal. Since World War II, sea mines have 

caused more damage to US warships than all other weapons systems combined. IEDs are the 

number one cause of coalition casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom. A significant amount 

of effort is already being expended to improve the military’s ability to find, mark, and 

destroy land and sea mines as well as IEDs. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page xiv 

4. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Reconnaissance. The ability to find 

chemical and biological agents, as well as radiological or nuclear weapon materiel and/or 

hazards, and to survey the extent of affected areas while minimizing the exposure of 

personnel to these agents is a crucial effort. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is responsible for ensuring unmanned systems 

support the Department’s larger goals of fielding transformational capabilities, establishing joint 

standards, and controlling costs. OSD has established the following broad goals to steer the 

Department in that direction. 

Goal 1. Improve the effectiveness of COCOM and partner nations through improved integration 

and Joint Services collaboration of unmanned systems. 

Goal 2. Support research and development activities to increase the level of automation in 

unmanned systems leading to appropriate levels of autonomy, as determined by the Warfighter 

for each specific platform. 

Goal 3. Expedite the transition of unmanned systems technologies from research and 

development activities into the hands of the Warfighter. 

Goal 4. Achieve greater interoperability among system controls, communications, data 

products, data links, and payloads/mission equipment packages on unmanned systems, including 

TPED (Tasking, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination). 

Goal 5. Foster the development and practice of policies, standards, and procedures that enable 

safe and effective operations between manned and unmanned systems. 

Goal 6. Implement standardized and protected positive control measures for unmanned systems 

and their associated armament. 

Goal 7. Ensure test capabilities support the fielding of unmanned systems that are effective, 

suitable, and survivable. 

Goal 8. Enhance the current logistical support process for unmanned systems. 

This Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap represents the Department’s first truly 

synchronized effort that increases the focus on unmanned systems, and through interoperability 

with manned systems, establishes a vision in support of our Warfighters. This Roadmap projects 

the types of missions that could be supported in the future by unmanned solutions, and the 

improvements in performance that can be expected as a result of investment into identified 

critical unmanned technologies. It recommends actions the Department can pursue to bring the 

projected vision to fruition. In short, this Roadmap informs decision makers of the potential to 

more effectively and efficiently support the Warfighter by continuing to leverage unmanned 

systems. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 1 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Purpose 

The purpose of this United States Department of Defense (DoD) Roadmap is to propose a 

feasible vision for capitalizing on unmanned systems technologies so that the Warfighter can 

conduct missions more effectively with less risk. The last six years have proven, without a 

doubt, that unmanned systems operating in the air, on land, and in maritime domains have 

significantly contributed to accomplishing the Department’s missions. These successes, however, 

likely represent only a fraction of what is possible and desirable by employing unmanned 

systems. This Roadmap, developed by the Department’s subject matter experts (SMEs), 

establishes recommendations for technologies to pursue, departmental strengths and 

opportunities to exploit, risks and challenges to overcome, and actions that can be taken to bring 

to fruition whatever aspects of this proposed future vision best serves the future needs of the 

Warfighters. 

This Roadmap is intended to serve a variety of audiences. It has been deliberately constructed to 

inform the DoD leadership and be responsive to the requirements set forth in Section 141 of the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 (Public Law 109-

364). It lays out the possibilities, issues, and implications associated with the development and 

employment of unmanned systems. Accordingly, the Roadmap identifies those missions that 

could, in the future, feasibly be performed by unmanned systems and lays out a prospective 

associated timeline. Finally, this Roadmap discusses unmanned systems performance 

characteristics expected to be needed by the industrial base to develop the types of enabling 

technologies supportive of the Warfighter. 

Scope 

This Roadmap lays out a recommended unmanned systems vision across a 25-year period. It 

encompasses all three environmental domains: air, ground, and maritime. It captures those 

unmanned systems that are already funded through the 2009 President’s Budget (PB09) and 

offers speculation as to what types of systems could be feasibly developed and employed outside 

the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) through 2034. It identifies the types of tasks that could 

be accomplished using unmanned systems within the Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) and 

highlights the multi-functional nature of such systems as appropriate. The Roadmap describes an 

expanding performance envelope that captures the current state-of-the-art and projects an 

evolution in performance across the 25 years. From these projections, the Roadmap identifies 

technologies that will need to be developed and matured in order to bring about the evolving 

performance. In essence, the Roadmap lays out a vision in terms of potential missions that could 

be performed by unmanned systems, the desired functionality and performance needed by the 

systems to perform those missions, and the technology advancements needed to achieve such 

performance. 

From this vision, the Roadmap addresses the associated strengths and opportunities that can be 

capitalized on to achieve such a vision. It also identifies those risks and challenges that must be 

mitigated and addressed in order to bring about such a vision. Finally, the Roadmap articulates a 

series of recommended actions that can position the Department to take advantage of the 

opportunities and overcome the challenges. 

What the Roadmap does not do is create operational concepts, identify requirements, or program 

funds to invest in technology development and system acquisition. This document is a map that 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 2 

describes a path the Department can take in progressing from the current use of unmanned 

systems to the vision that is laid out in the document. It does not supersede the need for the 

Department to conduct the analysis and decision making associated with identifying the best 

means to satisfy capability gaps. Nor does it attempt to convey recommendations for optimized 

mixes of manned and unmanned systems or optimized mixes of Joint and Service unique unmanned 

systems. These issues and others associated with investments, force structure, and new systems 

acquisition can only be informed by this Roadmap and must be addressed with deliberation at the 

appropriate point in the future. 

There will likely be decisions made in the future that choose manned systems over unmanned 

systems to accomplish tasks and missions for reasons of operational effectiveness, affordability, 

technical maturity, etc. These future decisions however, will be more deliberately informed 

because of the analysis and methodology employed in creating this Roadmap. It must be fully 

understood that, as time progresses and budgetary pressures come to bear, not all 

recommendations and aspects of the future projected in this Roadmap can or will be realized. 

Background 

Prior to 2007, each of the unmanned systems domains (i.e., air, ground, maritime) published and 

updated individual roadmaps and/or master plans. It was recognized that opportunities for 

efficiencies and greater interoperability could be achieved by establishing strategic planning for 

unmanned systems via an integrated approach, which is evidenced in the publication of the first 

Integrated Unmanned Systems Roadmap. This first integrated Roadmap identified the various 

systems in the inventory and captured all of the research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E), Procurement, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding programmed for 

unmanned systems. It laid out goals and objectives for the Department in continuing to pursue 

development and employment for unmanned systems and touched on technological challenges 

that would need to be addressed to achieve more effective interoperability. 

This 2009 Roadmap has deliberately used the 2007 Roadmap as a point of departure for: 

 Conducting a more integrated approach to identifying how unmanned systems can be 

optimized to support a greater set of mission areas 

 Identifying those common areas of technology maturation that can lead to performance 

improvements in all domains 

 Identifying the technology enablers needed to foster the ability to conduct collaborative 

operations between multiple unmanned systems in multiple domains 

Current State of Unmanned Systems 

Air Domain 

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have experienced explosive growth in recent history and have 

proved to be an invaluable force multiplier for the Joint Force Commander (JFC). UAS can 

provide both a persistent and highly capable intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

platform to troops requiring a look “beyond the next hill” in the field or “around the next block” 

in congested urban environments and, if necessary, also assist troops in contact or perform strike 

missions against high value targets (HVTs) of opportunity. UAS also have the ability to be 

dynamically re-tasked long distances across the battlespace as needed by the JFC and operate 

beyond line of sight (BLOS). Under a BLOS concept of operations (CONOPS), the forward 

footprint of the UAS is minimized which allows both the pilots and sensor operators to fly 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 3 

missions from the U.S. while maintaining only a small contingent forward in the operational 

environment. The smaller class UAS have proven their worth at Company and Platoon level, 

giving short-term line of sight (LOS) ISR capability to individual soldiers and also extending the 

reach of soldiers providing base perimeter defense. These smaller, less expensive UAS have 

become an integral and essential tool for ground forces and have proliferated throughout the 

operational environment. All Services currently employ a number of different systems across the 

spectrum from large to small UAS. 

Ground Domain 

Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), while not as prolific or at the investment level of UAS, 

nonetheless have proven their ability to contribute to combat operations. Since operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan began, more than 6,000 UGVs have been procured and deployed to theater. 

With the success of the UGVs in theater operations, Joint Urgent Operational Need Statements 

(JUONS) have been submitted for UGVs that can support missions ranging from reconnaissance 

for infantry and engineering units, to convoy operations, to advanced improvised explosive 

device (IED) defeat. In some cases, the JUONS have been satisfied via upgrades to existing 

UGVs and/or procurement of new UGVs. In other cases, the JUONS were asking for capabilities 

beyond the current technical state of the art. Although such solutions could not be provided to 

the theater, funding for technology development toward achieving the requested capability was 

programmed and work initiated to generate UGV systems that can satisfy the requirements. 

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is conducting a program that seeks to develop UGVs 

for employment in reconnaissance, supply, and protection missions for Special Forces units in 

forward operating situations. United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Pacific 

Command (PACOM) have both requested technology development support for UGVs that can 

conduct tunnel reconnaissance and mapping, and supply transport in complex terrain. The 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed its Urban Challenge with 

several teams successfully navigating and driving in urban traffic in fully autonomous mode 

within the 6-hour time limit. The DARPA Challenges have resulted in sensor breakthroughs that 

not only push the state of the art for UGVs but are also applicable to unmanned systems in the air 

and maritime domains. 

Industry has also taken note of the forward momentum in UGVs. After a request from DoD to 

form a consortium of robotics companies and academic institutions, over 80 organizations 

inclusive of defense contractors, non-traditional contractors, and universities, joined a robotics 

consortium that was formed in 4 months. An Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) was 

negotiated and signed between DoD and the Robotics Technology Consortium, which enabled 

industry to participate in the DoD ground robotics technology assessment process. This set a 

new, unprecedented level of partnership between DoD and industry/academia, resulting in 

greater awareness by DoD into industry independent research and development and industry 

insights into the priorities of DoD users for UGVs in support of military missions. These insights 

will better inform future investments into ground robotics technology development and better 

focus industry independent efforts to create UGVs suitable for military missions. 

Maritime Domain 

Unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs) present new opportunities to augment our naval forces 

and maintain maritime superiority around the world. Fleet experimentation and limited realworld application have validated concepts of fleet transformation and force multiplication using 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 4 

UMVs. An Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) unmanned surface vehicle 

(USV) was used at sea with USS Gettysburg (CG64) to demonstrate utility in ISR missions and 

for fleet familiarization. Small unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) were considered the main 

workhorses of the mine clearing effort during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and more 

recently, were used in support of Hurricane Katrina recovery operations in 2005. 

The Navy is investing in a limited number of UUVs and USVs systems with Mine 

Countermeasure (MCM) capability for fleet tactical development. Sufficient Science and 

Technology (S&T) investment is being made to ensure that once the operational concepts 

necessary to optimize the integration of UMVs are matured, transition to an operational 

capability will be readily accomplished. The first platform to leverage these advances will be the 

Littoral Combat Ship, which will employ unmanned vehicles in the undersea, surface, and air 

domains. The overarching goal for conducting future MCM operations is to “take the sailor out 

of the minefield.” Other capabilities under development for future application with UMVs 

include ISR, oceanography, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The Navy updated the UUV 

Master Plan in November 2004 and issued the first USV Master Plan in July 2007. 

PORs 

FY09PB 

($M) 

Funding 

Source FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 TOTAL 

RDT&E* $1291.2 $747.5 $136.2 $108.7 $68.9 $2,353 

UGV PROC* $33.4 $42.3 $53.5 $59.5 $21.1 $210 

O&M* $2.9 $3.9 $3.0 $12.8 $10.1 $33 

RDT&E $1347.0 $1305.1 $1076.4 $894.0 $719.5 $5,342 

UAS PROC $1875.5 $2006.1 $1704.7 $1734.3 $1576.2 $8,897 

O&M $154.3 $251.7 $249.0 $274.9 $320.2 $1,250 

RDT&E $57.3 $73.8 $63.2 $70.1 $76.9 $341 

UMS PROC $56.7 $78.4 $95.9 $91.6 $103.7 $426 

O&M $5.0 $4.5 $11.3 $13.5 $13.9 $48 

TOTAL $4,823 $4,513 $3,393 $3,260 $2,911 $18,900 

* RDT&E = Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; PROC = Procurement; O&M = Operations and 

Maintenance 

Table 1. FY2009–13 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems 

Congressional Direction 

Congress has consistently treated the development and employment of unmanned systems by the 

DoD as a special interest area and often provided Congressional Direction both in Committee 

Reports as well as including guidance that was passed into public law. Below is a brief 

description of the various statutes and Committee Reports that direct the Department in its 

pursuit and use of unmanned systems. This Roadmap has been developed in compliance with the 

guidance set forth in these references. 

 Section 141 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (Public 

Law 109-364), called for DoD to establish a policy that gives the Defense Department 

guidance on unmanned systems, some key points of which included: identifying a preference 

for unmanned systems in acquisitions of new systems, addressing joint development and 

procurement of unmanned systems and components, transitioning Service unique unmanned 

systems to joint systems as appropriate, the organizational structure for effective 

management, coordinating and budgeting for the development and procurement of unmanned 

systems, and developing an implementation plan that assesses progress towards meeting 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 5 

goals established in Section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 

for FY2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-389; 114 Stat. 1654A-38). 

 Section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (Public 

Law 106-398), in which Congress states two key, overall goals for the DoD with respect to 

UAS and UGV development. First, that by 2010, one third of the aircraft in the operational 

deep strike force should be unmanned, and second, that by 2015, one third of the Army’s 

FCS operational ground combat vehicles should be unmanned. 

This Roadmap is the culmination of a deliberate and methodical exercise to address the elements 

described above, with particular emphasis on the three aspects of the implementation plan. In 

essence, this Roadmap is the prescribed implementation plan directed in Public Law 106-389. 

Chapter 2 of this Roadmap projects a feasible schedule to pursue unmanned systems for the 

identified missions. It also describes a strategy for evolving the performance envelope associated 

with unmanned systems so that the identified missions could be conducted in a manner that 

would satisfy a preference for an unmanned system over a manned system for that mission. 

Chapter 3 of this Roadmap expands on the strategy by identifying the strengths and 

opportunities, as well as challenges and risks that must be addressed in bringing about the 

projected future vision of integrating unmanned systems into the DoD force structure. Finally, 

Chapter 4 addresses the technological developments that would be needed to address the 

technical and operational challenges, as well as gaps in capabilities pursuant to the 2007 statute. 

NOTE: Copies of the guidance document may be viewed online on the Joint Ground Robotics 

Enterprise (JGRE) website at http://www.jointrobotics.com/. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 6 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 7 

CHAPTER 2. VISION FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND 

EMPLOYMENT OF UNMANNED SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The vision for the DoD is that unmanned systems will provide flexible options across 

operating domains, enabling the Warfighter’s execution of assigned missions. 

Unmanned systems will be integrated across domains and with manned systems, 

providing the Joint Force Commander (JFC) with unique and decisive capabilities. 

This chapter is based both on what has been officially programmed into the budget across the 

PB09 as well as what is projected to be feasible beyond the FYDP out to 2034. A working group 

composed of subject matter experts (SMEs) in the air, ground and maritime domains across the 

Services and DoD Agencies created this vision collectively. It represents a reasoned projection of 

how the Department might employ unmanned systems across a variety of mission areas, but it 

does not imply that decisions have been made to pursue such systems or that funding has been 

programmed against these projections. The intent of the vision is to articulate the possibilities 

and subsequently those actions and issues the Department would have to address to bring about 

such a future. 

This integrated vision for DoD development and employment of unmanned systems is 

characterized in three ways. First, unmanned systems (those currently in the inventory, those 

currently in development, and those projected in the future) are categorized to provide a sense of 

the types of missions that currently, and in the future could be, supported by unmanned solutions. 

Next, the level of performance needed by unmanned systems to carry out the identified missions 

was identified and projected. This “performance envelope” serves as the starting point for 

understanding the technological, policy, and standardization implications for being able to 

develop and employ unmanned systems. Finally, having understood the implications associated 

with the potential future missions and needed performance enhancements, goals and objectives 

were crafted that will enable the Department to bring the future vision to reality if it chooses to 

pursue this projected path. These three visionary characterizations for the future of unmanned 

systems within the Department serve as the underpinnings for the remainder of this Roadmap. 

Unmanned Systems Applied to Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) 

Mapping current and projected unmanned systems against the JCAs provides a sense of the 

Product Line Portfolio of unmanned systems and how it currently and could in the future, 

contribute to the missions of the Department. Each JCA represents a collection of related 

missions and tasks that are typically conducted to bring about the desired effects associated with 

that capability (see Appendix E for complete definitions of capability areas and representative 

tasks). Since nine JCAs have been defined, assessment identified that unmanned systems had the 

potential to be key contributors for Battle Space Awareness, Force Application, Protection, 

Logistics, and Building Partnerships as shown in Table 2 below. The Force Support and Net 

Centric capability areas had fewer opportunities for unmanned systems to contribute to these 

types of missions and tasks. 

Current technology and future advancements can and will enable single platforms to perform a 

variety of missions across multiple capability areas. This represents an opportunity for the 

Department to achieve a greater return on investment. Furthermore, the projections show that there 

will be opportunities for joint systems to conduct missions for each of the Services, just as there 

will be situations in which domain conditions or Service missions will dictate unique solutions. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 8 

Detailed descriptions of each of the systems identified for the capability areas inclusive of specific 

tasks, performance attributes and integrated technologies can be found in Appendix D. 

Unmanned Systems by JCA and Domain 

Numbers of Named Systems 

Battlespace Awareness 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

84 

30 

38 

16 

Corporate Management & Support 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

1 

0 

1 

0 

Logistics 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

28 

6 

22 

0 

Building Partnerships 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

32 

6 

18 

8 

Force Application 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

42 

22 

10 

10 

Net-Centric 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

18 

8 

10 

0 

Command & Control 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

20 

8 

12 

0 

Force Support 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

20 

2 

18 

0 

Protection 

 Air 

 Ground 

 Maritime 

66 

11 

42 

13 

Table 2. Density of Named Systems within Each JCA 

Tables 3-10 below depict a mapping of each JCA against a named systems and predicted life 

cycle for that system within the time span of this plan. 

NOTE: The capability mapping data sheets may be viewed online at 

http://www.jointrobotics.com/. 

Battle Space Awareness 

Battle Space Awareness is a capability area in which unmanned systems in all domains have the 

ability to contribute significantly both currently and well into the future. Unmanned systems 

development and fielding need to include the Tasking, Production, Exploitation, and 

Dissemination (TPED) processes required to translate sensor data into a shared understanding of 

the environment. Applications range from tasks such as aerial and urban reconnaissance, which is 

performed today by Predators, Reapers and Global Hawks in the air and by PackBots and Talons 

on the ground, to future tasks such as Expeditionary Runway Evaluation, Nuclear Forensics, and 

Special Forces Beach Reconnaissance. In the future, technology will enable mission endurance to 

extend from hours to days to weeks so that unmanned systems can conduct long endurance 

persistent reconnaissance and surveillance in all domains. Because unmanned systems will 

progress further and further with respect to full autonomy, on-board sensors that provide the 

systems with their own organic perception will be able to contribute to Battle Space Awareness 

regardless of their intended primary mission. In essence, fully autonomous unmanned systems will 

be able to conduct Battle Space Awareness tasks in the future. This capability area is one that lends 

itself to tasks and missions being conducted collaboratively across domains, as well as teaming 

within a single domain. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Battle Space Awareness (BA) 

Advanced EOD Robot System (AEODRS) MQ-9 Reaper 

Amphibious UGV/USV Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

Anti-Personnel Mine Clearing System, Remote Control 

(MV-4B) 

Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Countermine (MULE-C) 

Automated Combat SAR Decoys Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Transport (MULE-T) 

Automated Combat SAR Recovery Next Advanced EOD Robot 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 9 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Battle Space Awareness (BA) 

Autonomous Undersea Mine Layer Next Generation Maritime Interdiction Operations UGV 

Autonomous Undersea Mine Neutralization Next Generation Surface-launched Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV) 

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER) Next Generation Tunnel Reconnaissance UGV 

Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) Next Generation USV with Unmanned Surface Influence 

Sweep System (USV w/US3) 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS) Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV 

CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced Off Board Sensing UAS 

CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced Concept 

Technology Demonstration 

PackBot Explorer 

Class I UAS PackBot FIDO 

Class IV UAS PackBot Scout 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation Precision Acquisition and Weaponized System (PAWS) 

Communications Relay UAS Remote Minehunting System (RMS) 

Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & Recovery Riverine Operations UGV 

Covert Tracking/Sensor Robot Route Runner 

Defender RQ-4 Global Hawk 

EOD UAS RQ-7 Shadow 

F6A - ANDROS Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS) (Raven) 

Floating Mine Neutralization UAS Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

Global Observer SOF Beach Reconnaissance UGV 

Harbor Security USV Special Operations Forces Long Endurance 

Demonstration (SLED) 

HD-1 STUAS/Tier II 

High Altitude Persistent/Endurance UAS Surface-launched Mine Counter-Measures Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV) 

High Speed UAS Talon Eng/3B 

Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) Talon EOD 

Intelligent Mobile Mine System Talon IV 

Large Displacement UUV Tunnel Reconnaissance UGV 

Littoral Battlespace Sensing - AUV (LBS-AUV) UAS-UGV Teaming 

MARCbot Unmanned Combat Aircraft System - Demonstration 

(UCAS-D) 

Maritime Interdiction Operations UGV USV with Unmanned Surface Influence Sweep System 

(USV w/US3) 

Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) Vehicle Craft Launched Unmanned Aircraft System 

(VCUAS) 

Mine Counter-Measures & Anti-Submarine Warfare USV Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air 

Vehicle (VTUAV Firescout) 

MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, EOD VSW UUV Search, Classify, Map, Identify, Neutralize 

(SCMI-N) 

MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, EOD WARRIOR A/I-GNAT 

MK 3 MOD 0 RONS Weaponborne Bomb Damage Information UAS 

MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, EOD WMD Aerial Collection System (WACS) 

Mobile Detection Assessment Response System 

(MDARS) 

xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

MQ-1 Zephyr High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAS 

MQ-5B Hunter 

Table 3. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Battle Space Awareness 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 10 

Force Application 

Force Application is another JCA which is projected to include a proliferation of unmanned 

systems conducting force application tasks. Today, Predator, Reaper and Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) UAS are weaponized to conduct offensive operations, irregular warfare, and 

high value target/high value individual prosecution and this trend will likely continue in all 

domains. In the air, projected mission areas for UAS include air-to-air combat and suppression 

and defeat of enemy air defense. On the ground, UGVs are projected to conduct missions such as 

non-lethal through lethal crowd control, dismounted offensive operations, and armed 

reconnaissance and assault operations. In the maritime domain, UUVs and USVs are projected to 

be particularly suited for mine laying and mine neutralization missions. 

Because the DoD complies with the Law of Armed Conflict, there are many issues requiring 

resolution associated with employment of weapons by an unmanned system. For a significant 

period into the future, the decision to pull the trigger or launch a missile from an unmanned 

system will not be fully automated, but it will remain under the full control of a human operator. 

Many aspects of the firing sequence will be fully automated but the decision to fire will not 

likely be fully automated until legal, rules of engagement, and safety concerns have all been 

thoroughly examined and resolved. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Application (FA) 

Air-to-Air UAS WMD Aerial Collection System (WACS) 

Automated Combat SAR Decoys Autonomous Expeditionary Support Platform (AESP) 

Automated Combat SAR Recovery Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & 

Recovery 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation Crowd Control System (Non-lethal Gladiator Follow-on) 

EOD UAS Defender 

Floating Mine Neutralization UAS Intelligent Mobile Mine System 

High Altitude Persistent/Endurance UAS Next Generation Small Armed UGV 

High Speed UAS Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV 

Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) Small Armed UGV Advanced 

MQ-1 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

MQ-9 Reaper UAS-UGV Teaming 

Next Generation Bomber UAS Amphibious UGV/USV 

Off Board Sensing UAS Autonomous Undersea Mine Layer 

Precision Acquisition and Weaponized System (PAWS) Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) 

SEAD/DEAD UAS Harbor Security USV 

Small Armed UAS Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) 

STUAS/Tier II Mine Neutralization System 

Unmanned Combat Aircraft System - Demonstration 

(UCAS-D) 

Next Generation USV with Unmanned Surface 

Influence Sweep System (USV w/US3) 

Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air 

Vehicle (VTUAV Fire Scout) 

Remote Mine hunting System (RMS) 

WARRIOR A/I-GNAT USV with Unmanned Surface Influence Sweep System 

(USV w/US3) 

Weapon borne Bomb Damage Information UAS VSW UUV Search, Classify, Map, Identify, Neutralize 

(SCMI-N) 

Table 4. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Application 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 11 

Protection 

Protection is a JCA that has particular unmanned systems applicability. Many of the tasks 

associated with protection can be characterized as dull, dangerous, and dirty. Those types of 

tasks are ideally allocated to unmanned systems. As the future enables greater automation with 

respect to both navigation and manipulation, unmanned systems will be able to perform tasks 

such as fire fighting, decontamination, forward operating base security, installation security, 

obstacle construction and breaching, vehicle and personnel search and inspection, mine clearance 

and neutralization, more sophisticated explosive ordnance disposal, casualty extraction and 

evacuation, and maritime interdiction. In the capability area, teaming within domains, and 

collaboration across domains will likely be typical for conducting many of these types of tasks. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Protection (P) 

Automated Combat SAR Decoys MK 3 MOD 0 RONS 

Automated Combat SAR Recovery MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, EOD 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation Mobile Detection Assessment Response System 

(MDARS) 

EOD UAS Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment 

(MULE) ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

MQ-1 Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment 

(MULE) Countermine (MULE-C) 

MQ-5B Hunter Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment 

(MULE) Transport (MULE-T) 

RQ-7 Shadow Next Advanced EOD Robot 

STUAS/Tier II Next Generation Maritime Interdiction Operations 

UGV 

Unmanned Combat Aircraft System - 

Demonstration (UCAS-D) 

Next Generation Small Armed UGV 

Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned 

Air Vehicle (VTUAV Firescout) 

Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV 

WARRIOR A/I-GNAT PackBot Explorer 

Advanced EOD Robot System (AEODRS) PackBot FIDO 

All Purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS) PackBot Scout 

Anti-Personnel Mine Clearing System, Remote 

Control (MV-4B) 

Route Runner 

Automated Aircraft Decontamination Small Armed UGV Advanced 

Automated Bare Base/Shelter Construction UGV Talon Eng/3B 

Automated Facilities Services Talon EOD 

Autonomous CASEVAC & Enroute Care System 

(ACES) 

Talon IV 

Autonomous Expeditionary Support Platform 

(AESP) 

UAS-UGV Teaming 

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER) xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced Autonomous Undersea Mine Neutralization 

CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced 

Concept Technology Demonstration 

Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) 

Combat Engineering & Support Robotic System Harbor Security USV 

Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & 

Recovery 

Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 12 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Protection (P) 

Crowd Control System (Non-lethal Gladiator 

Follow-on) 

Mine Neutralization System 

Defender Next Generation Surface-launched Mine CounterMeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM 

UUV) 

F6A - ANDROS Next Generation USV with Unmanned Surface 

Influence Sweep System (USV w/US3) 

HD-1 Remote Minehunting System (RMS) 

MARCbot SEAFOX USV 

Maritime Interdiction Operations UGV Surface-launched Mine Counter-Measures 

Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV) 

Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE) USV with Unmanned Surface Influence Sweep 

System (USV w/US3) 

MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, EOD VSW UUV Search, Classify, Map, Identify, 

Neutralize (SCMI-N) 

MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, EOD 

Table 5. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Protection 

Logistics 

The Logistics capability area is also ideally suited for employing unmanned systems in all 

domains. Transportation of supplies will be a common task in all domains and especially in all 

types of ground terrain. Maintenance type tasks such as inspection, decontamination, and 

refueling will be performed by unmanned systems. Munitions and material handling, and combat 

engineering are ideal tasks that will be allocated to unmanned systems to increase safety as well 

as increase efficiency. Additionally, casualty evacuation and care, human remains evacuation, 

and urban rescue will also be tasks performed by unmanned systems. Unmanned systems 

performing these types of tasks will have the ability to support logistics missions both on home 

station as well as forward deployed. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Logistics (L) 

Air Refueling UAS Autonomous CASEVAC & Enroute Care System 

(ACES) 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation Autonomous Convoy 

Precision Air Drop/Firefighting UAS Autonomous Expeditionary Support Platform (AESP) 

Strategic Airlift UAS Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER) 

STUAS/Tier II Combat Engineering & Support Robotic System 

Tactical Airlift UAS Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & 

Recovery 

Automated Aircraft Decontamination Defender 

Automated Aircraft Inspection Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE) 

Automated Aircraft Maintenance Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

Automated Aircraft Refueling Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Countermine (MULE-C) 

Automated Bare Base/Shelter Construction UGV Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Transport (MULE-T) 

Automated Cargo Handling/Aircraft Loading Talon Eng/3B 

Automated Facilities Services Talon IV 

Automated Munitions Handling/Loading UAS-UGV Teaming 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 13 

Table 6. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Logistics 

Building Partnerships 

Although it is highly unlikely unmanned systems would be designed and developed exclusively 

for building partnerships, many of the systems discussed above can support Combatant 

Commanders in their endeavors to build relationships with partner nations. Nearly all the 

systems identified that can perform Battle Space Awareness, Protection, and Logistics missions 

can be employed in support of partner nations in disaster response by searching for victims in 

damaged buildings, evacuating victims to medical care facilities, firefighting, transport of 

emergency supplies, road and runway inspections potentially damaged in earthquakes and 

tsunamis, etc. The range clearance and countermine unmanned systems can support partner 

nations by clearing land of unexploded ordnance so it can be returned to productive use. Those 

systems that conduct reconnaissance and surveillance can be employed on behalf of partner 

nations to assist with drug interdiction and insurgent activity. Just about any unmanned system 

deployed with a unit serving in a partner nation will have the potential to contribute to the 

Building Partnerships capability area. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Building Partnerships (BP) 

Air Refueling UAS MK 3 MOD 0 RONS 

Automated Combat SAR Decoys MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, EOD 

Automated Combat SAR Recovery Next Advanced EOD Robot 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned 

Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) 

Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation PackBot Explorer 

MQ-9 Reaper PackBot FIDO 

RQ-4 Global Hawk PackBot Scout 

Advanced EOD Robot System (AEODRS) xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

Autonomous CASEVAC & Enroute Care System 

(ACES) 

Autonomous Undersea Mine Layer 

Combat Engineering & Support Robotic System Autonomous Undersea Mine Neutralization 

Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & 

Recovery 

Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) 

Defender Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) 

F6A - ANDROS Next Generation Surface-launched Mine CounterMeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM 

UUV) 

HD-1 Next Generation USV with Unmanned Surface 

Influence Sweep System (USV w/US3) 

MARCbot Surface-launched Mine Counter-Measures 

Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV) 

MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, EOD VSW UUV Search, Classify, Map, Identify, 

Neutralize (SCMI-N) 

MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, EOD 

Table 7. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Building Partnerships 

Force Support 

Force Support is a capability area that has less opportunity for unmanned systems to contribute, 

but there are tasks that again can be allocated to autonomous systems. The medical area is one in 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 14 

particular where unmanned systems will proliferate. Tasks such as medical resupply, 

telemedicine, casualty care, and trauma stabilization could be conducted by unmanned systems. 

Because of the lack of human presence, unmanned systems are precisely the ideal solution for 

nuclear and bio-weapon forensics, and contaminated remains recovery. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Support (FS) 

Airborne Tele-surgery Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Countermine (MULE-C) 

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Transport (MULE-T) 

All Purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS) Next Generation Small Armed UGV 

Autonomous CASEVAC & Enroute Care System (ACES) Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV 

Autonomous Targets PackBot Explorer 

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER) PackBot FIDO 

Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & Recovery PackBot Scout 

Crowd Control System (Non-lethal Gladiator Follow-on) Route Runner 

MARCbot Small Armed UGV Advanced 

Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

Table 8. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Force Support 

Command and Control (C2) 

Command and Control is an area that is not directly executed by unmanned systems, but such 

systems can contribute indirectly. All systems will have the ability to communicate and can 

therefore act as relay nodes for C2 communications. Because they will have their own local 

situational awareness, they can contribute the sensing of their local environment to the greater C2 

picture, thus providing additional situational understanding to a commander’s decision making. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Command and Control (C2) 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS) Mobile Detection Assessment Response System 

(MDARS) 

Communications Relay UAS Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

High Altitude Persistent/Endurance UAS Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Countermine (MULE-C) 

RQ-4 Global Hawk Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Transport (MULE-T) 

Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS) (Raven) PackBot Explorer 

STUAS/Tier II PackBot FIDO 

Unmanned Combat Aircraft System - Demonstration 

(UCAS-D) 

PackBot Scout 

Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air 

Vehicle (VTUAV Firescout) 

Route Runner 

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER) Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

MARCbot xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

Table 9. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Command and Control 

Net Centric 

Like Command and Control, the Net Centric capability is one that would not be directly 

supported by unmanned systems, but one where they perform a contributing role. Again, because 

of the need for sensor packages on board the unmanned platforms that enable local situational 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 15 

awareness, each unmanned system becomes a node on the network that contributes to the 

formation of the network that enables communications and sensor feed flow. Additionally, 

payloads carried by the unmanned platforms can contribute to deployment of sensors and 

communications relays that are dedicated to net centric operations, in essence serving as 

autonomous delivery mechanisms for strategic emplacement of the network communications and 

sensor components. 

Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Net-Centric (NC) 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS (BAMS UAS) Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L)) 

Class I UAS Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Countermine (MULE-C) 

Class IV UAS Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) 

Transport (MULE-T) 

Communications Relay UAS PackBot Explorer 

High Altitude Persistent/Endurance UAS PackBot FIDO 

RQ-4 Global Hawk PackBot Scout 

STUAS/Tier II Route Runner 

Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air 

Vehicle (VTUAV Firescout) 

Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

MARCbot xBot (PackBot Fastac) 

Table 10. Named Unmanned Systems Associated with Net-Centric 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 16 

This page is intentionally left blank.
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 17 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

Air

BA, P MQ-5B Hunter

Equipped with heavy fuel engines (HFE), state of the art avionics, and the capability to carry munitions has proven to be a notable combat multiplier for the War Fighter.

BA, FA, P WARRIOR A/I-GNAT Slightly larger than the Gnat 750, has external hard points, an unencrypted air-to-air data link ability and updated avionics.

BA, FA, P, 

C2

Unmanned Combat Aircraft System - Demonstration (UCAS-D)

Demonstration of critical technologies for a carrier suitable, low observable (LO) air vehicle in a relevant environment.

BA, FA Off Board Sensing UAS

Provide fire support for under the weather and threat standoff target positive identification (PID) to increase mission effectiveness. 

BA, FA Weaponborne Bomb Damage Information UAS

Deployed from the MOP tail-kit during weapon flight. Preprogrammed via the MOP to fly to specific coordinates and remain in the vicinity of the target to transmit post-impact video imagery. 

2018 

BA, FA, P, 

C2, NC

Used afloat and ashore by United States Navy (USN) units to provide local commanders real-time imagery and data to support Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) requirements. 

JCAs 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

All Systems

Domain System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2019 

Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV Firescout)

BA, C2, NC, 

BP

High-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft designed to provide wide area coverage of up to 40,000 nm2 per day.

BA, C2

Develop a digital data link with swappable modules to change frequencies (16 channels (L-Band)/15 channels (S-Band)) with 15 Km+ range. Provide air-to-air relay capability between SUAS with adaptive transmit power management up to 1.5W.

RQ-4 Global HawkSmall Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS) (Raven)

BA, FA, BP

Medium- to high-altitude, long-endurance UAS. Primary mission is to act as a persistent hunter-killer for critical timesensitive targets and secondarily to act as an intelligence collection asset.

MQ-9 ReaperMQ-1

Brigade level Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) UAV, designed for launch and recovery from unprepared and unimproved landing zones, with EO/IR/MSI/CM/LRF/LD, SAR/GMTI and comms relay.

BA, P, FA

Provide Division Commanders with a much improved real-time responsive capability to conduct long-dwell, wide-area reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, communications relay, and attack missions.

Class IV UAS

BA, FA, P, L, 

C2, NC

Provide persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) support for tactical level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense/force protection for Navy ships and Marine Corps land forces. Notional system consists of four air vehicles, two ground control stations, multi-mission (plug-and-play) payloads, and associated launch, recovery and support equipment.

STUAS/Tier II

BA, FA

Provides the ground Soldier with Reconnaissance and Surveillance and Target acquisition (RSTA). Uses autonomous and manual flight to provide dedicated reconnaissance support and early warning to the platoon and company level, in environments not suited for larger assets.

Micro Air Vehicle (MAV)

BA, P RQ-7 Shadow

Rail-launched via catapult system. Operated via the Army’s One System GCS and lands via an automated takeoff and landing system (recovering with the aid of arresting gear) and net.

BA, NC Class I UAS

Provides the ground Soldier with Reconnaissance and Surveillance and Target acquisition (RSTA). Uses autonomous flight and navigation, laser designation, and operates on the FCS network.

BA, NC

BA, C2, NC, 

BP

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned UAS (BAMS UAS)

Navy variant of the Block 20 RQ-4B Global Hawk with specific capabilities developed for the persistent maritime and littoral ISR mission.

BA

Vehicle Craft Launched Unmanned Aircraft System (VCUAS)

Carried in a 72′′ × 30′′ × 20′′ case that transforms into a 

pneumatic launcher, it can be launched from small vessels and recovered in open water. It can carry IR or color video sensors or can be used to drop small payloads.

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 18 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

BA, FA WMD Aerial Collection System (WACS)

Will investigate the integration of chemical and radiological sensors to develop a multi-sensor unmanned aerial collection platform that can detect chemical and radiological material contained in the plume released from a WMD counterforce strike against a suspected WMD threat target. 

BA, FA, P EOD UAS Small (potentially VTOL) UAS for EOD reconnaissance and possible comms relay for EOD UGVs.

L Strategic Airlift UAS

Extreme heavy-lift Inter/Intra theater airlift able to land and deliver equipment to friendly forces or remove equipment and personnel from low-threat environment.

L Tactical Airlift UAS

Inter/Intra theater airlift able to land and deliver equipment to friendly forces or remove equipment and personnel from high threat environment.

L Precision Air Drop/Firefighting UAS Tactical airlift aircraft with autonomous airdrop capability that, if required, can recognize a visual target and self-navigate to the target for precision airdrop within 25 metres.

BA Zephyr High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAS

A Zephyr HALE UAS with a communications relay payload, orbiting for weeks at a time at 40,000ft+ provides a comms link at typical hand held frequencies in real time for ground communications over an area of thousands of square miles.

BA Global Observer Addresses the capability gaps identified above with a hydrogen powered high altitude long endurance (HALE) UAS.

BA, FA, P, L, 

FS, BP

Combat Medic UAS for Resupply & Evacuation

Purpose is to design, develop and demonstrate enabling technologies for delivery of medical supplies and Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) systems by UAS platforms to combat medics for treatment, stabilization and subsequent evacuation of combat casualties from hostile situations.System capable of rapid deployment at extreme Mach with trans-continental range to reach world-wide within 2-3 hours and provide near immediate ISR and/or strike capability.

BA, C2, NC Communications Relay UAS

Provide relay for BLOS comm when satellite relay capability is either unavailable or impractical. Remain airborne and on station for extended periods of time without refueling or maintainence.Tanker UAS system capable of automatically air-refueling Air Force, other Service and coalition aircraft with compatible airrefueling systems.

FA Air-to-Air UAS

UAS to conduct air-to-air combat operations. UAS can fly into areas the US does not have aerial dominance and engage in air-to-air combat defeating enemy fighters with greater maneuverability and at higher performance levels than a “manned” aircraft.

L, BP Air Refueling UAS

Small <100 lbs attack UAS with precision strike capability that can be employed at LOS/BLOS ranges. Either independently launched and employed or launched from a carrier aircraft.

UAS capable of recognizing enemy IADS and missle systems, locating, targeting, attacking and destroying them. Perform post attack BDA and reattack if necessary.

FA SEAD/DEAD UAS

BA, FA High Speed UAS

BA, FA, C2, 

NC

High Altitude Persistent/Endurance UAS

Ability to remain on station for a period of months at a time unrefueled. This system with provide the Combatant Commander with an uninterrupted ability to conduct signal detection, identification, tracking and reconnaissance.Allow for autonomous detection and neutralization of surface, near-surface, and floating sea mines. The craft will be launched from a host ship (the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) or other Ship of Opportunity (SOO)), transit to a specified area, conduct its pre-assigned mission, and return to the host ship for recovery while the host ship remains at a safe standoff distance from a potential mine threat area.

BA, FA

Small Armed UAS

Domain System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2

Medium to heavy attack bomber capable of penetrating heavily defended targets and deliver a broad spectrum of weapons, perform post-strike BDA with reattack capability if necessary.

FA

Floating Mine Neutralization UAS

FA Next Generation Bomber UAS

JCAs 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping Continued 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 19 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

BA, FA, P, 

BP Automated Combat SAR Recovery

Employ silent drive technologies, stealthy maneuvering, and high resolution sensors for personnel detection. Carry basic provisions for personnel sustenance and basic medical care.

FS Airborne Tele-surgery Provide the capability to conduct tele-surgery during airborne transport operations using rear area surgeons. 

BA Special Operations Forces Long Endurance Demonstration (SLED)

The SLED ACTD will demonstrate military utility and affordability of the A-160 Hummingbird UAS and its ability to support the following core and collateral SOF missions: Special Reconnaissance – Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) with day/night long-range electro-optic, infrared, radar imaging, and 3-D Light Distancing and Ranging (LIDAR) imaging for terrain and urban mapping. 

BA, FA Precision Acquisition and Weaponized System (PAWS) Provide tactical UAV with limited collateral damage weapon. 

BA, FA, P, 

BP

The unmanned systems will be ground mobile and produce a physical and acoustic signatures similar to a human target in order to lead the enemy forces away from the stranded personnel.

Domain System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2

Automated Combat SAR Decoys

JCAs 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Figure 1. Air Domain JCA Mapping Continued 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 20 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 21 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

Ground BA, P, BP MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, EOD

Complement/augment the military EOD technician performing reconnaissance, disruption, and disposal during extremely hazardous EOD missions involving UXOs and IEDs. 

BA, P, BP MK 3 MOD 0 RONS

Complements/augment the EOD technician when performing reconnaissance, access, render safe, pick-up and carry away, and disposal during extremely hazardous missions involving UXOs and IEDs.

BA, P, BP MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, EOD

Consists of six UGV’s and two operator control stations (OCS). The UGV is teleoperated via an RF link from the OCS and is designed to deliver an explosive counter-charge or other EOD explosive tool to the target area.

BA, P, BP Next Advanced EOD Robot Develop and transition specific technologies to SDD for AEODRS replacement in 2023.

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC, BP PackBot Explorer

Configured for remote reconnaissance and detection, detection of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons presence, explosives detection and surveillance for support of safe checkpoints. 

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC, BP PackBot Scout

Configured for remote reconnaissance and detection, detection of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons presence, explosives detection and surveillance for support of safe checkpoints. 

BA Covert Tracking/Sensor Robot

Small UGVs and sensors used to attach and track vehicles covertly. UGVs will be remotely driven (without detection) underneath a vehicle and attach to the vehicle.

All Systems

Domain JCAs System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

BA, P, BP MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, EOD

Complement/augment the military EOD technician performing reconnaissance, disruption, and disposal during extremely hazardous EOD missions involving UXOs and IEDs. 

BA, P Talon EOD

Provides soldiers the ability to visually identify IED from standoff range safe enough so that the operator has a minimum likelihood of being injured. 

P, FS All Purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS)

Remotely employ an array of tools and attachments to detect, assess, and render safe large IEDs and large-vehicle bombs as well as clear unexploded ordnance (UXO) from prepared areas.

BA, P, BP Advanced EOD Robot System (AEODRS) Robots in the AEODRS family will be capable of autonomous tactical behaviors that will significantly reduce the burden of operation on the EOD technician. BA, P, BP F6A - ANDROS

Small-sized (350lbs) EOD robot capable of remotely performing reconnaissance and delivering EOD tools to defeat small IEDs (briefcase, pipe bombs).

BA, P, L Talon Eng/3B

Provides soldiers the ability to visually identify IED from standoff range safe enough so that the operator has a minimum likelihood of being injured.

BA, P, L Talon IV

Provides soldiers the ability to visually identify IED from standoff range safe enough so that the operator has a minimum likelihood of being injured.

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC, BP xBot (PackBot Fastac)

Designed to fill an operational need for a man-portable, small (less than 50 lbs.), stable reconnaissance platform to support ground combat infantry troops. 

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC, BP PackBot FIDO Robotic bomb dog, used for IED detection of vehicle and personnel borne explosives.

BA, P, BP HD-1

Incorporates emerging radio technology; extends stand-off range; increased handling capability and ability to operate in electronic countermeasures (ECM) environment. 

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC, BP MARCbot Small robot that is on a RC Monster truck chassis that has an arm with a camera as the head. 

BA, FA, C2, 

NC

Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV)

Small robotic vehicle that assists the Soldier with reconnaissance while aiding the understanding and visualization of the tactical picture. 

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 22 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

FA, P, FS Small Armed UGV Advanced

Remote maneuverable unmanned armed vehicle operating on all-terrain, such as mud, sand, rubble-type obstacles, 6-inch deep water, and in all-weather conditions.

BA, P CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced Integration of chemical and radiological sensors onto an unmanned ground vehicle. BA, P

CBRN Unmanned Ground Vehicle Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

Integrated Chemical and radiological sensors onto an unmanned ground vehicle. 

BA, FA, P, 

FS, BP

Nuclear Forensics Next Generation UGV

Purpose of this project is to seek advancements in our ability to perform rapid and safe ground sample collection in a radioactive environment. 

BA, FA, P, L, 

BP Defender

Augment the base defense force providing patrol, sentry, and alarm response duties as needed within the integrated bases defense security system.

BA Tunnel Reconnaissance UGV Develop technologies for exploring and mapping tunnel complexes and underground structures. 

BA, P Martitime Interdiction Operations UGV Develop and demonstrate a marinized, small UGV to support at-sea maritime interdiction operations including boarding and inspection of vessels of all sizes. 

BA, FA, P, L, 

FS, BP

Contaminated Remains/Casualty Evacuation & Recovery

Design, develop and demonstrate a working prototype of a combined UGS/UAS for the recovery of incapacitated, wounded or killed personnel suspected of having been exposed to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE) hazards.

P, L, FS, BP Autonomous CASEVAC & Enroute Care System (ACES)

Robotic patient extraction evacuation and enroute care system with tele-operation, semi-autonomous, and autonomous control capabilities implemented on a marsupial robotic vehicle pair.

BA Next Generation Tunnel Reconnaissance UGV Next gen tunnel reconnaissance UGV to develop technologies for exploring and mapping tunnel complexes and underground structures. 

BA, P Next Generation Maritime Interdiction Operations UGV

Next gen that will continue to develop and demonstrate a marinized, small UGV to support at-sea maritime interdiction operations including boarding and inspection of vessels of all sizes. 

Mobile Detection Assessment Response System (MDARS)

Provides installation commanders an electro-mechanical capability to conduct semi-autonomous random patrols and surveillance activities to include barrier assessment and theft detection functions. 

BA, P, C2

Anti-Personnel Mine Clearing System, Remote Control (MV-4B)

The MULE-Countermine will move out front of the Force with the capability to detect, mark and neutralize anti-tank mines. 

Domain JCAs System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

P, L Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE)

The system can clear a mine path 11.5 ft wide. The flail assembly consists of a rotating axle with 72 chains attached; the end of each of the chains is fitted with a hammer head weighing 2 lb.

BA, P

Provides a standoff tele-operated AP landmine and obstacle clearing and neutralization force protection capability to support assured mobility, force protection, maneuver and maneuver enhancement objectives. 

BA, P, L, FS, 

C2, NC

Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) Countermine (MULE-C)

FA, P, FS Next Generation Small Armed UGV

Next gen small armed UGV with remote maneuverable unmanned armed vehicle operating on all-terrain, such as mud, sand, rubble-type obstacles, 6-inch deep water, and in allweather conditions.

Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) ARV Assault Light (ARV-A(L))

Provide unmanned reconnaissance and firepower to destroy armor targets and is equipped with a Medium Range EO/IR sensor and Aided Target recognition capability to identify targets. 

BA, P, L, FS, 

C2, NC

BA, P, L, FS, 

C2, NC

Multi-function Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) Transport (MULE-T)

Workhorse designed to carry the equipment of two squads (1900 lbs) during dismounted operations. The platform fulfills several other roles: recharge batteries used by the dismounted soldiers, communications relay and emergency casualty evacuation. 

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping Continued 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 23 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

BA, P, L, FS, 

C2

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot (BCER)

Robotic casualty extraction system that can negotiate varied terrain with infantry soldiers and ride on other CASEVAC manned and UGVs, UAVs as a marsupial.

L Automated Cargo Handling/Aircraft Loading Provide the capability for automated unmanned cargo handling and aircraft loading to improve the efficiency of aerial port operations and increase personnel safety. 

L Automated Munitions Handling/Loading Provide the capability for automated unmanned munitions handling and aircraft loading to improve the efficiency of rearming operations and increase personnel safety. 

FA, P, L Autonomous Expeditionary Support Platform (AESP) Hybrid diesel electric, self recovery equipped, 48” fording, 120 & 240 VAC & 0-60 VDC power generating UGV capable of fully autonomous, way point, follow me, and teleop navigation.

BA SOF Beach Reconnaissance UGV

Deployed by the SEAL team from underwater, traverse the surf zone to the beach, and provide an initial view of the beach and any hazards present there.

P, L, BP Combat Engineering & Support Robotic System Provide the capability to conduct airfield construction and repair tasks in a combat environment while minimizing the risk to personnel. 

BA, P, FS, 

C2, NC Route Runner

Tele-operated control system to remotely operate a HMMWV with the portable control system operating from a separate control vehicle that addresses JUON CC-0092. Capable of supporting convoy lead, patrol and route clearance missions. 

BA, FA Intelligent Mobile Mine System

Mobile Robotic platform that will support Infantry, Armor and Engineer units with a protective mining mission capability in support of their other tactical missions in all areas of the battlefield. 

BA Riverine Operations UGV

 Develop and demonstrate a UGV capable of inspecting river bottoms for possible caches of weapons or other contraband. Once found, the UGV may be used to help retrieve the item. 

FS, CM&S Autonomous Targets

Provide a more realistic and effective training and OT&E experience to better prepare the force and evaluate system effectiveness. 

P, L Automated Aircraft Decontamination Provide the capability to conduct equipment and aircraft decontamination in a highly contaminated environment while minimizing personnel exposure to hazards. 

L Automated Aircraft Inspection Provide the capability to conduct automated aircraft inspections of both exterior and interior components. 

P, L Automated Bare Base/Shelter Construction UGV Provide the capability for automated bare base and shelter construction to minimize the time and personnel required to establish an expeditionary operating base. 

BA, FA, P, L UAS-UGV Teaming

Identifying and designing cross-domain teams (i.e., use of a UAS to quickly transport a UGV into hostile/difficult terrain where it can perform its mission).

L Automated Aircraft Maintenance

Provide the capability to conduct automated aircraft maintenance. Capability to perform scripted routine and preventative maintenance, change out of line replaceable units, and teleoperated maintenance of internal components. 

P, L Automated Facilities Services

Provide the capability to conduct routine facilities housekeeping, maintenance, and food service support with the minimum DoD and contractor personnel. 

FA, P, FS Crowd Control System (Non-lethal Gladiator Follow-on)

Several uses to include combat missions involving direct fire, scouting missions, crowd control, cordon and search missions, urban patrolling, checkpoint operations, and a simple show of force.

L Increase the efficiency of ground support operations through automation of the ground refueling operation. Automated Aircraft Refueling

Domain JCAs System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

Autonomous Convoy

Figure 2. Ground Domain JCA Mapping Continued 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 24 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 25 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

All Systems Maritime

Allows for semi-autonomous undersea mine hunting in the shallow and deep water regime. The system will be able to detect and classify undersea mines in high clutter environments and detect buried mines. Allow for autonomous deployment of undersea mines. The craft will be launched from a host ship (the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) or other Ship of Opportunity (SOO)), transit to the minefield, conduct its pre-assigned mission, and return to the host ship for recovery while the host ship remains at a safe standoff distance from the minefield.

BA, FA, P, 

BP

VSW UUV Search, Classify, Map, Identify, Neutralize (SCMI-N)

Allow for autonomous localization, identification and neutralization of undersea mines. The craft will be launched from a host ship or clandestine small boat, transit to the minefield, conduct its pre-assigned mission, and return to the host ship for recovery while the host ship remains at a safe standoff distance from the minefield.

BA, FA, BP Autonomous Undersea Mine Layer

Next Generation Surface-launched Mine Counter-Measures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV)

BA, P, BP

Surface-launched Mine CounterMeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (SMCM UUV)

BA Littoral Battlespace Sensing - AUV (LBS-AUV)

Provide the ability to collect strategic oceanographic data that is required to characterize sound propagation conditions and performance capability of active and passive acoustic sensors and weapon systems in shallow-water areas of interest, as well as support strategic efforts to provide baseline data sets for MIW change detection. 

Allows for semi-autonomous undersea mine hunting in the shallow and deep water regime. The system will be able to detect and classify undersea mines in high clutter environments and detect buried mines. 

BA, P, BP

BA, FA, P, 

C2

Remote Minehunting System (RMS)

Determines the presence or absence of naval mines to an acceptable level of confidence to enable ships to operate in or avoid specific areas.

BA, P, BP Autonomous Undersea Mine Neutralization

Allow for autonomous neutralization of undersea mines. The craft will be launched from a host ship (the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) or other Ship of Opportunity (SOO)), transit to the minefield, conduct its pre-assigned mission, and return to the host ship for recovery while the host ship remains at a safe standoff distance from the minefield.

BA, FA, P, 

BP

Mine Counter Measures USV with Unmanned Surface Influence Sweep System (USV w/US3)

Allows for semi-autonomous magnetic and acoustic influence sweeping of mines in the shallow and deep water regime. The MCM USV will be deployed as part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) MCM Mission Package. 

BA, FA, P, 

BP

Next Generation USV with Unmanned Surface Influence 

Allows for semi-autonomous magnetic and acoustic influence sweeping of mines in the shallow and deep water regime. 

FA, P Airborne Mine Neutralization System Ability to rapidly neutralize in-volume, close-tethered and proud bottom mines. Also, the ability for positive identification of the sea mine threat.

BA Anti-Submarine Warfare USV

Designed as an common unmmaned surface platform capable of carrying and operating different ASW payloads . The ASW USV will be deployed as part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) ASW Mission Package – emphasizing on the shallow water diesel submarine threat.Allow for autonomous localization, identification and neutralization of undersea mines. The craft will be launched from a host ship, pier or small boat, transit to the minefield, conduct its pre-assigned mission, and return to the host ship for recovery while the host ship remains at a safe standoff distance from the minefield.

BA, FA, P, 

BP

Hull UUV Localization System (HULS)

Allow for autonomous localization, identification and neutralization of limpet mines. The craft will be launched from pier or small boat, transit to target ship, conduct its preassigned mission, and return to the launch point for recovery while personnel remain at a safe standoff distance from the minefield.

BA, FA, P, 

BP

Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS)

Domain JCAs System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

Figure 3. Maritime Domain JCA Mapping 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 26 

RDT&E =

PROC =

In Inventory =

BA, FA Amphibious UGV/USV 

Development of an amphibious platform to enable water-borne delivery of ground systems, ground delivery of aquatic platforms, and or the ability to move with tactical teams whose mission requires the ability to traverse both deep water and land.

P SEAFOX USV USV designed to support remote, unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).

BA Large Displacement UUV

Provide the Joint Forces Commander (JFC) with the ability to perform missions beyond the volume and endurance constraints of smaller-diameter systems, in areas that may be inaccessible to traditional platforms without disclosing operational intent or placing humans in a high-risk environment. 

BA, FA, P Harbor Security USV

Medium sized, high speed USV (7m) with thermal/optical/CBRN sensors, communications, and nonlethal weapons will investigate, query, monitor, interdict known and unknown surface contacts to protect moored vessels.

Domain JCAs System Name Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

Figure 3. Maritime Domain JCA Mapping Continued 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 27 

Unmanned Systems Performance Envelope 

The performance envelope for unmanned systems must keep pace with the demands of the 

missions that will be expected of these types of systems, thus performance attributes associated 

with unmanned systems must evolve significantly. Figures 4 through 7 provide a depiction of 

the projected evolution of key performance attributes unmanned systems must exhibit in order to 

enable the projected missions and tasks. First and foremost, the level of autonomy should 

continue to progress from today’s fairly high level of human control/intervention to a high level 

of autonomous tactical behavior that enables more timely and informed human oversight. 

Performance Across Domains 

Many key performance attributes are independent of domain. Regardless of whether the systems 

perform in the air, on the ground, or in a maritime environment, they will all require 

advancement in these performance regimes, but it is conceivable that the speed of evolution may 

differ among the domains. The focus of human interface with the machine should evolve from 

today’s current physical interfaces such as joysticks, touch screens, etc., to interaction such as 

hand signals, and ultimately to natural language understanding in order to be tasked for missions. 

Similarly, as the need to communicate between humans and unmanned systems will always be a 

requirement, the spectrum in which unmanned systems communicate must evolve past radio 

frequencies and exhibit an agility to hop around in the spectrum to ensure robust, secure 

communications. Today, minimal emphasis has been placed on operational security, thus most 

UAS, UGVs, USVs, and UUVs exhibit fairly easily detectable acoustic, thermal, visual and 

communication signatures. In the future, unmanned systems will be asked to carry out missions 

in a covert manner, thus low observable and signature management attributes will be desirable. 

Figure 4. Performance Envelope Common to All Domains 

Also common to all domains will be increased mission endurance. Today, mission endurance is 

measured in hours. In the future, it will be desirable for unmanned systems to conduct their 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 28 

missions in durations measured in days, weeks, months, and feasibly years. This is a key, 

desirable attribute as manned tasks are always constrained by the human body’s need for food 

and sleep. Another key desirable feature will be mission equipment packages that can be 

interchanged between platforms and potentially even across domains. Today, most payloads are 

designed for integration with a single platform. By providing interchangeability across platforms 

and domains, commanders will be afforded a great flexibility in terms of available options for 

conducting specific missions in specific types of circumstances. Finally, performance should 

evolve from today’s controller to platform ratio of many to one or at best one to one, to a single 

controller being able to monitor multiple unmanned systems performing across domains as 

collaborating teams. 

A Discussion of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability for Unmanned 

Systems 

While it is difficult to exactly predict the growth path for Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (RAM) associated with unmanned systems, one thing is absolute: reliability must 

be achieved at a higher standard than ever before. This is due to the very nature of unmanned 

systems, as there will be no personnel to stop and change a flat tire for a UGV. These systems 

are on their own, so reliability must be at the forefront of key requirements. 

It is also clear that there is a minimum threshold for reliability as the technology for these 

systems matures. As autonomy progresses from teleoperation, to semi-autonomy, and finally full 

autonomy, mission endurance will need to keep pace. The more a system is capable of doing 

without operator intervention, the longer it can execute on its own. The predicted performance 

envelope expects that as autonomy increases, so too will the call for increased mission 

endurance. Today, endurance is measured in hours. Twenty-five years from now, it is entirely 

feasible it will be measured in months. To achieve this, reliability must keep pace. Minimally, 

unmanned systems must be reliable enough to keep up with mission endurance times. 

Given that availability is a function of reliability, maintainability, and logistics, it is also difficult 

to predict how this attribute will evolve over the next 25 years. Still, it is clear that the very 

nature of unmanned systems suggests that a greater standard will have to be met than is typical 

for manned systems. Unmanned systems are force multipliers precisely because they are 

unmanned. They enable the same number of personnel to control greater areas of responsibility 

and take on more mission capacity. They provide the extended stand off and reduced risk of 

exposure, loss of limb, and loss of life. For unmanned systems to have less than high availability 

is to render them a risk to the mission, as well as a burden vice a force multiplier. 

Understanding the paradigm between reliability and maintainability leads to the conclusion that 

maintainability will require a different approach than is typical for manned systems. As 

autonomous behavior increases in sophistication and mission endurance increases to months, the 

need for self-diagnostics and self-repair becomes evident. What is less clear is how the trade 

space will evolve between reliability, maintainability and system duration. It is envisioned that 

the evolution of an unmanned system’s ability to conduct multiple missions between repairs 

and/or maintenance will be predicated on other performances that may be impacted. Future 

requirement developers will have to sort through the priorities of whether it is more important to 

be able to conduct multiple long endurance missions without maintenance or whether to give up 

such duration to preserve key performance and/or characteristics such as size, weight, speed, 

range, etc. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 29 

Performance Specific to Domains 

Many performance attributes are in fact domain specific, and thus will evolve for specific types 

of platforms. An example is speed. Since speed is very much governed by the type of domain, 

the desired increase in speed will be vastly different amongst unmanned systems. In the future, 

UAS will likely match and/or exceed speed obtained by today’s manned aircraft. UGVs can 

however, easily exceed the speeds achieved by manned vehicles, particularly in rough complex 

terrain, precisely because they will not be constrained by the relative frailty of the human body. 

Similar statements can be made regarding unmanned maritime systems (UMSs) operating on and 

below the surface of the water. It is highly likely that unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and 

unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs), depending on mission requirements, may be required and 

able to achieve speeds exceeding manned vessels. 

Other domain specific performance attributes include survivability, situational awareness, and 

maneuverability. In the air domain, maneuverability is often characterized by the ability to 

withstand multiples of earth’s gravitational force. The human body can only sustain 9 Gravities 

of Acceleration (Gs), whereas technology is the only limiting factor for unmanned systems being 

able to execute maneuvers that create forces reaching or exceeding 40 Gs. On the ground, 

gravitational force is pretty much a constant. However, the type of terrain the DoD must operate 

in varies widely and is often a constraint on manned vehicle maneuverability as rough terrain can 

put many Gs on UGVs as they bounce around, much more than a driver would be willing to 

tolerate for long periods of time. In the future, UGVs will be asked to maneuver in areas that 

manned vehicles usually do not traverse, and may even maneuver in terrains where dismounted 

troops are unlikely to operate. With respect to maneuver, turbulence is frequently an issue for air 

and maritime domain systems, but not for UGVs, except for severe storm conditions. 

Situational awareness is also significantly governed by domain. In the air, UAS will need the 

ability to sense objects and avoid them, the biggest challenge being small objects moving at high 

speeds. On the ground, while speed is also a concern, UGVs have to contend with “negative 

obstacles.” Humans can easily discern negative obstacles such as shadows, puddles, ditches, etc., 

and can quickly determine if the features are navigable or if they should be avoided. Currently, 

on-board sensor packages and software algorithms do not easily perceive these terrain features, 

thus they present risk in terms of situational awareness and navigation. The ability to detect, 

classify, and determine the navigability of such terrain features is a key performance attribute for 

UGVs. On the water, UUVs and USVs have to detect, predict the path of, and avoid other 

moving boats (some at high speed) that are not constrained by narrow lanes. This has to be done 

while still observing the maritime “rules of the road.” The undersea environment adds additional 

complexity for UUVs to avoid low profile objects, such as fishing nets and marine mammals. 

Finally, survivability will be unique for the domains. The requirement for an unmanned system 

to be survivable is not only dependant upon the mission it is expected to perform, but also the 

domain in which it operates, and tradeoffs in performance requirements. UUVs and USVs 

obviously must survive the very harsh salt fog, high humidity, and degradation effects of water 

to a far greater extent than UAS and UGVs. Also, cost will have an impact on where the 

survivability requirement is drawn. For more sophisticated missions, such as high altitude, long 

endurance UAS, or UGVs that can traverse complex terrain at high speeds, cost is relatively 

dear. Thus, a greater measure of survivability is desirable in order to protect the investment, but 

it also must be balanced against degradation in range and payload capabilities. If missions can be 

accomplished with low cost systems, then survivability may be completely traded away as a 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 30 

desirable performance attribute. Because the need to protect humans is taken out of the equation, 

unmanned systems can be deliberately designed to be disposable or for single mission use. 

Air Domain Specific Performance Attributes 

UAS are evolving into multi-role platforms able to provide both ISR “persistent stare” at targets 

over a large area and quick reaction strike at targets of opportunity. They can be rapidly and 

dynamically re-tasked to other areas with a higher priority, and are currently enjoying 

tremendous freedom of action in uncontested airspace. Because of this, UAS are proliferating 

throughout the theater of operations supporting both the JFC and ground combatant 

commanders. To shape their battle space and make decisions affecting the outcome of their 

engagements, commanders at all levels require situational understanding and UAS can provide a 

variety of these components. They increase the situational awareness (SA) of commanders 

through intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target acquisition. Armed UAS provide 

commanders direct and indirect fire capabilities to prosecute the close fight and influence 

shaping of the battlefield, while being able to re-role into any component of the Find, Fix, Track, 

Target, Engage, Assess kill chain. Other functions that UAS typically perform are: enhanced 

targeting through acquisition, detection, designation, suppression and destruction of enemy 

targets, and battle damage assessment (BDA). 

MQ-1B, outfitted with Hellfire missiles, and MQ-9, loaded with laser guided missiles and 

gravity weapons, are providing immediate strike capability and have provided laser designation 

for a number of different platforms. They, along with smaller hand-launched UAS, have located 

snipers, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), mortar firing points, and fleeing insurgents 

assisting the Commanders in winning the War on Terror. UAS adaptability, versatility, and 

dependability have become indispensable to successful joint combat operations. 

All four Services employ multiple UAS for a variety of tasks and missions including fleet, 

perimeter security, tactical surveillance, weapons spotting, targeting, and weapons guidance, as 

well as a host of other unit mission-specific tasks. 

Key performance requirements for future UAS, depending on mission requirements, will be 

speed, maneuverability, stealth and increased range, payload, endurance, net-centric 

connectivity, and obstacle avoidance and detection. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 31 

Figure 5. Air Domain Performance Envelope 

Ground Domain Specific Performance Attributes 

Key performance attributes that are unique to UGVs are the performance of tasks that require 

complex manipulation, the ability to operate in and around urban settings, the ability to traverse 

changing terrain, payload, range, and endurance. The vast majority of complex tasks performed 

by humans today are performed on the ground, precisely because humans naturally exist on the 

ground. While complex tasks are and can be performed in the air and underwater, the need for 

autonomous complex manipulation of objects will naturally proliferate in the ground domain. An 

opportunity exists to leverage the significant advancement in prosthetics technology to provide 

UGVs the ability to perform such missions as de-arming bombs and munitions, performing 

maintenance on other materiel, and precisely moving objects in support of a variety of tasks, 

such as sensor deployment, depot operations, medical treatment support, etc. 

Figure 6. Ground Domain Performance Envelope 

While UAS may fly in and around urban settings, and UUVs and USVs may operate in and 

around ports and marinas, UGVs will be the predominant vehicles expected to conduct missions 

within buildings, tunnels, and through city streets. This requires that UGVs be able to operate in 

Global Positioning System (GPS)-denied areas, traverse stairs, deal with elevators, open doors, 

and possibly even open windows, desk and file drawers, and cupboards, etc. In addition to the 

challenge of navigating and traversing within buildings, UGVs will need to navigate within and 

through city streets that will be busy with traffic and pedestrians. Urban streets also mean UGVs 

will have to contend with curbs, trash, water drains, etc. 

Finally, UGVs will have the unique requirement of dealing with changing terrain due to weather. 

UGVs must be able to travel on ground that is hard and stable one minute, and then becomes 

mud several minutes later. They must be able to navigate and maneuver in spite of dust kicked 

up by their own movement or windy conditions, as well as when the ground becomes slippery 

due to rain or freezing conditions. Snow accumulation also becomes a terrain feature UGVs will 

have to contend with, not only in terms of being able to travel while snow is falling, but also over 

roads covered in snow. UGVs will have to be equipped with the sensors and perception 

algorithms to make decisions about when it is permissible to travel in these types of terrain or 

when it is better to delay the mission. 

Maritime Domain Specific Performance Attributes 

Surface. Working autonomously on the surface of the water poses some unique challenges 

beyond the requirements common with other domains. The seven general USV capabilities 

described by the Navy Unmanned Surface Vehicle Plan of July 2007 include a diverse range of 

missions, including Mine Countermeasures, Antisubmarine Warfare, Maritime Security, Surface 

Warfare, Special Operations Forces Support, Electronic Warfare, and Maritime Interdiction 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 32 

Operations Support. While each of these has its specific requirements, some general performance 

attributes are common to all. 

Key performance attributes for USVs include operation in varying sea state conditions that may 

have a significant effect on sensor and platform performance characteristics. Another challenge 

somewhat unique to the surface environment is the potential for highly dynamic and 

unpredictable vessel traffic with the requirement to follow complex rules of navigation that 

change depending on the type of vessels involved. This requires a highly sophisticated sensing 

and autonomous navigation/planning capability. 

The need for autonomy is also driven by two other factors: the desire to decrease the operator 

workload with the goal of a single operator controlling multiple USVs, and the need to conduct 

missions over the horizon which may be beyond the range of the communications systems. 

Underwater. Working autonomously underwater poses many of the same challenges for UUVs 

as does working in the air and ground environments for UAS and UGVs. Many of the same 

functions must be performed: surviving the environmental challenges, maneuvering and 

navigating to the goal, collecting the information, and communicating with the users. The nine 

general UUV capabilities described by the Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Plan of November 

2004 include a diverse range of missions, including Intelligence/ Surveillance/Reconnaissance, 

Mine Countermeasures, Antisubmarine Warfare, Inspection/Identification, Oceanography, 

Communication/Navigation Network Node, Payload Delivery, Information Operations, and 

Time Critical Strike. While each of these has its specific requirements, some general 

performance attributes are common to all. 

The undersea environment ranges from the very simple to the very complex. Issues of pressure 

with depth and leakage must be considered for all systems. Currents and waves pose many of the 

same challenges to UUVs as do winds and storms to UAS and UGVs. The open ocean 

environment may be as clear as high altitude flying, or working in shallow water or riverine 

environments may be as cluttered as the most complex ground scenario. In all these cases, the 

individual mission of interest must be evaluated to ensure the system can operate effectively in 

the desired environment. 

Many of the missions envisioned for UUVs require covering large areas underwater. 

Hydrodynamic drag limits the speeds readily attainable, and energy use goes up with the square 

of the speed. Batteries are generally the power source of choice, with some systems using fuel 

cells. High density energy sources are needed, but the safety considerations and platform 

compatibility must also be considered. 

Collecting and processing information is critical to all unmanned vehicle operations. Many of the 

primary sensors used undersea are sound based, with the laws of physics delimiting the 

performance. For instance, operational speed may be limited by the coverage rate of the sensor, as 

opposed to the speed of the vehicle. Getting the required navigation information can also be a 

challenge in the undersea environment: use of GPS requires access to the surface, acoustic systems 

require transponder deployment, and inertial systems have issues with drift and accuracy. 

Communication is one of the toughest challenges in the underwater environment. Untethered 

communication means, such as acoustic and non-contact optical (laser), tend to be low 

bandwidth and/or severely range limited. Applications that require high bandwidth 

communications, such as manipulation, are generally performed by remotely operated vehicles 

(ROVs) with the operator directly controlling the vehicle. Typical work system ROVs require 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 33 

significant platform support in terms of tether management systems, launch and recovery, and 

operator control stations. 

The need for autonomy is closely tied to the communication challenges posed by the underwater 

environment. The bandwidth and range limitations of acoustic and optical communications mean 

that an untethered system must be able to operate largely independent of direct human 

intervention. Typically, a UUV will perform a mission collecting data, and communicate only 

when certain events occur. Data transfer typically happens after recovery of the vehicle, when 

more efficient means of communication can be used. There are situations where Real Time (RT) 

or Near Real Time (NRT) data transfer is critical. In these cases, efficiency is defined as data not 

exceeding time thresholds of little values or no values rather than the optimum process of data 

transfer post recovery. Therefore, UUV developments must consider RT and NRT data transfer 

in the early stages of design. 

Finally, one area that is often overlooked in the underwater vehicle world is that of operational 

compatibility. UUVs require launch and recovery systems that must be tailored to work with the 

support platform. In many cases, systems that are suitable for launching a system do not work for 

the recovery process as well. Since most of today’s systems are not considered expendable, it is 

critical to plan for the launch and recovery of the system for successful operation of the systems. 

Figure 7. Maritime Domain Performance Envelope 

Goals and Objectives 

Having created a vision for the types of missions that can be performed by unmanned systems 

and identified the performance evolution that must occur, a natural next step is to identify those 

goals and objectives that will lead to achieving such a vision. The goals and objectives 

established as part of the analysis and methodology of this Roadmap seek to support the 

Department’s larger goals of fielding transformational capabilities, establishing and 

implementing joint standards, ensuring interoperability, balancing the portfolio, and controlling 

costs. To this end, the following broad goals and objectives are intended to position the 

Department to leverage the promise of unmanned systems: 

Goal 1. Improve the effectiveness of COCOM and partner nations through improved integration and Joint 

Services collaboration of unmanned systems. 

Objective 1.1. Conduct and share unmanned systems technology development with COCOMs and partner 

nations. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

COCOMs provided with technology 

updates? (y/n) 

Annual AT&L - DDR&E 

COCOMs provide criticality ratings 

for technologies (DAU metrics) 

Annual COCOMs 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 34 

Track JUONS and UONS with 

unmanned system implications and 

percentage acted on by acquisition 

community 

Annual J8 / AT&L 

Objective 1.2. Conduct joint experimentation with COCOMs and partner nations. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Track unmanned system 

advancements in joint exercises and 

experimentation events (# unmanned 

system advancements) 

Annual COCOMs (JFCOM-J9) 

Did exercise or experiment 

demonstrate increased operational 

utility resulting from unmanned 

system? (y/n) 

Annual COCOMs (JFCOM-J9) 

Goal 2. Support research and development activities to increase the level of automation in unmanned 

systems leading to appropriate levels of autonomy, as determined by the Warfighter for each specific 

platform. 

Objective 2.1. Determine the capabilities the Warfighter needs to be automated or autonomous. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Determine percentage of 

ICD/JCD/CDD/CPD with unmanned 

system applicability 

Annual Services / J8 

Objective 2.2. Develop autonomous behaviors to enable independent tactical mission capabilities. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Level of investment into advancing 

autonomy 

Annual Services / USSOCOM / DDR&E 

Goal 3. Expedite the transition of unmanned systems technologies from research and development (R&D) 

activities into the hands of the Warfighter. 

Objective 3.1. Conduct risk reduction to mature technologies. This step allows the Military Departments to 

finalize capability requirements and to establish funding for formal program initiation while overcoming the 

technology transfer challenges. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Level of investment into unmanned 

system technology risk reduction 

Annual Services / Agencies 

Objective 3.2. Conduct concept demonstration/Warfighter experimentation with promising technologies. This 

step would allow for early assessment to help define realistic requirements underpinned by sound 

operational concepts. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Track unmanned system 

advancements in exercises and 

experimentation events (# unmanned 

system advancements) 

Annual Services / COCOMs 

Objective 3.3. Develop comprehensive transition plans to address Warfighter needs early in the development 

process. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Number of Technology Transition 

Agreements (TTA) and/or MOAs 

implemented 

Annual Services / USSOCOM / DARPA 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 35 

Percentage of technology efforts with 

TTAs and/or MOAs 

Annual Services / USSOCOM / DARPA 

Goal 4. Achieve greater interoperability among system controls, communications, data products, data links, 

and payloads/mission equipment packages on unmanned systems, including TPED (Tasking, Processing, 

Exploitation, and Dissemination). 

Objective 4.1. Field common secure communications systems for unmanned systems control and sensor 

product data distribution (Beyond Line of Sight [BLOS] and Line of Sight [LOS]). Incorporate capability to 

prevent interception, interference, jamming, and hijacking. Seek integrated solutions between technology, 

tactics, training, and procedures. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Percentage of fielded unmanned 

systems with common secure 

communications 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Objective 4.2. Emphasize common payload interface standards across unmanned platforms to promote 

greater mission versatility. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Percentage of fielded payload 

packages used in multiple systems 

compliant with common interface 

standards 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Percentage of fielded systems using 

multiple payload packages compliant 

with common interface standards 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Goal 5. Foster the development and practice of policies, standards, and procedures that enable safe and 

effective operations between manned and unmanned systems. 

Objective 5.1. Promote the development, adoption, and enforcement of Government, international, and 

commercial standards for the design, manufacturing, testing, and safe operation of unmanned systems. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Percentage of fielded unmanned 

systems safety certified against 

government/international/commercial 

standards 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Objective 5.2. Develop and field unmanned systems that can “sense” and autonomously avoid other objects 

in order to provide a level of safety equivalent to comparable manned systems. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Percentage of fielded unmanned 

systems with autonomous object 

avoidance 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Goal 6. Implement standardized and protected positive control measures for unmanned systems and their 

associated armament. 

Objective 6.1. Adopt a standard unmanned systems architecture and associated standards for unmanned 

systems capable of weapons carriage. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Architecture adopted? Standards 

adopted? (y/n) 

Annual AT&L 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 36 

Goal 7. Ensure test capabilities support the fielding of unmanned systems that are effective, suitable, and 

survivable. 

Objective 7.1. Ensure the appropriate test infrastructure is available for developmental and operational 

testing of unmanned systems. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Percentage of programs delayed due 

to test infrastructure issues 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Percentage of programs 

experiencing resource constraints 

due to infrastructure issues 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Percentage of programs assuming 

risk due to inability to test 

(infrastructure issues) 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Goal 8. Enhance current logistical support process for unmanned systems. 

Objective 8.1. Adopt innovative strategies to provide cost effective logistical support to unmanned systems 

to satisfy operational tempo (OPTEMPO) requirements. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Is cost per platform to support fielded 

unmanned systems trending 

downward? (y/n) 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Objective 8.2. Promote the development of engineering design to increase the reliability and maintainability 

of unmanned systems, allowing for an availability rate to meet Warfighter requirements. 

Metrics Time Frame Data Source 

Are operational availabilities of 

fielded unmanned systems trending 

upward? (y/n) 

Annual Services / USSOCOM 

Table 11. Goals and Objectives 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 37 

CHAPTER 3. UNMANNED SYSTEMS PATH FORWARD

Methodology for Analysis 

Having created a vision for how DoD can employ unmanned systems, the next step in 

establishing the Roadmap was assessing how well postured DoD is to bring about such a vision. 

Subject matter experts (SMEs) across the Services and Agencies in all three domains assessed 

DoD’s strengths, opportunities, challenges, and risks associated with unmanned systems. Items 

in all four categories were readily identified, indicating that while DoD can draw upon internal 

strengths and leverage opportunities to further the employment of unmanned systems, it still 

faces a multitude of challenges to address and risks that must be mitigated. 

Strengths and Opportunities 

Unmanned systems within the DoD will need to make use of their strengths and opportunities. 

The strengths and opportunities stem from extensive experience with unmanned systems that can 

be leveraged to repeat successful outcomes and avoid inefficiencies and mishaps. While 

experience in each domain differs widely, strengths across all domains are those things that 

demonstrate the ability to share lessons learned and potential technical and operational solutions 

that contribute to the DoD’s ability to successfully develop and employ unmanned systems with 

increased capability. Opportunities are those things that exist across all domains to increase the 

positive public attitude toward unmanned systems and to promote an increase in the unmanned 

systems industrial base and development of new technologies. 

The following highlights strengths in each of the domains: 

Air Domain 

 Force Structure. UAS continue to be a vital asset to the Joint Forces Commander giving 

them the ability to maintain long-term vigilance over the battlespace, but also giving them 

immediate strike capability if presented with an enemy high value asset (HVA). It is this 

combined effect that has and continues to be a force multiplier. UAS, in some missions and 

scenarios, can be an alternative to manned aircraft performing similar missions with lower 

risk to the aircrews. 

 Reputation. UAS continue to improve on their reputation as a reliable and invaluable partner 

to the Warfighter, as evidenced by the almost insatiable need for full motion video (FMV) 

and ISR information grows exponentially. UAS have saved countless lives, providing the 

Warfighter with evidence that IEDs have been planted on convoy routes, warning troops of 

ambushes, assisting troops in contact, and permanently removing HVAs from the battle. 

 RAM. While existing systems generally have a satisfactory maintenance ratio, reliability and 

maintenance have continued to improve as systems have matured. 

 Mission Complexity. As UAS continue to mature, more and more capabilities are being 

added to existing systems and new systems are being designed with multi-role missions in 

mind. This has and will continue to lead to more and more complex missions being flown. 

Ground Domain 

 IED Defeat Operations. The employment of UGVs to detect, interrogate, and defeat IEDs 

has had an exponential benefit in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) by reducing risk to Warfighters. With approximately 12,000 UGV 

operations per year, thousands of casualties have been avoided. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 38 

 Supportability. UGVs have a network of repair and replacement capability enabled by the 

Joint Robotic Repair and Fielding (JRRF) activity both in theatre and state side. Support is 

provided through reservists, DA civilians, and contractor support personnel. Operational 

availability of UGVs is excellent. 

 Reputation. The evolution of ground robotics and the impact in the current wars have 

fostered a dependence on this important capability. UGVs have had positive exposure in the 

media to include governmental publications, TV, and other mainstream media. 

Maritime Domain 

 Autonomy. The unique challenges of the undersea environment have necessitated significant 

R&D effort into autonomous control of UUVs. The undersea environment reduces options 

for external navigation sources, presents dynamic obstacles, and limits the ability to track 

vehicle location. Limited range of secure communication pathways to maintain acoustic 

security provide additional challenges to vehicle control. In order to overcome these 

challenges, autonomy will continue to be a major focus of UUV development. 

Another strength is that a robust R&D infrastructure exists within the DoD that is inclusive of a 

wide variety of unmanned systems related expertise and skills. Each Service boasts a variety of 

laboratories that are currently pursuing technologies that will lead to the performance evolution 

discussed earlier in this chapter. Such expertise includes perception algorithm development, 

autonomous navigation, high altitude airframe expertise, maritime obstacle detection and 

avoidance, etc. This expertise has led to the development of technology that the federal 

government can license to private industry for continued development and commercial 

application, further extending the return on DoD’s R&D investment. As a complement to the 

strong R&D infrastructure, DoD encompasses an extensive test range network that enables 

sophisticated testing of unmanned systems in a variety of environments, ranging from extreme 

cold, to extreme desert heat, to jungle conditions. 

The following highlights opportunities in each of the domains: 

 Industry very willing to assist DoD in shaping future vision 

 Strong academic capability in US Universities to tap for technology development 

 Strong, supportive Congressional interest 

 Partnering with other Government agencies, international organizations, and countries 

 Common interests in utilization 

 Unmanned system R&D is significant 

 Further economies of scale 

 Can shape, influence, and implement standards to meet needs of unmanned community 

 Architecture – Standardize on common operating system and message passing schema 

 Safety 

 Operations 

Other strengths and opportunities identified for the DoD include strong Combatant Command 

and Service support for such systems based on their performance in theater. Because of the 

outstanding success of UAS and UGVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, Urgent Operational Need 

Statements (ONSs) have been generated that are actually requesting unmanned systems beyond 

the current state of the technology. While some of the urgent needs cannot be met with existing 

systems, the DoD has directed investments into technology development that would lead to 

satisfying these needs. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 39 

Finally, the DoD will continue to become more experienced in the employment of unmanned 

systems, and operational concepts and tactics, techniques, and procedures will continue to 

mature. This maturation could lead to affordability becoming less of an issue, because the DoD 

may be able to capitalize on economies of scale through purchase of greater numbers of systems 

vice the minimum quantities originally purchased when such systems were first being introduced 

to the force structure. A better understanding of how best to employ the systems leads to a better 

understanding of the optimum mix of manned and unmanned systems, as well as a better 

understanding of the appropriate quantities per given unit structure. 

Challenges and Risks 

While opportunities for the DoD were identified as arising from its strengths, the challenges and 

risks faced by the DoD in pursuing greater employment of unmanned systems were viewed as 

distinctly different. Challenges were viewed as those impediments entirely within the DoD’s 

ability to overcome if it chose to address the issue. Risks were viewed as those situations outside 

the full control of the DoD and thus would either have to be mitigated or accepted. 

The challenges identified consist of the following: 

 Lack of stable/approved requirements. The requirements process and AF doctrine for 

unmanned systems has not kept pace with evolving technologies and the urgent needs of the 

Warfighter. Requirements creep and demands for rapid fielding have led to problems with 

existing and developmental unmanned platforms. It is likely that demands for rapid fielding 

will continue. Guidance from DoD regarding the overall UAS architecture can serve as an 

overall standard, mitigating future problems of UAS integration. 

 Insufficient emphasis on reliability and maintainability of unmanned systems. The 

current commitment of combat forces has seen a number of unmanned systems fielded 

quickly without the establishment of the required reliability and maintainability infrastructure 

that normally would be established prior to and during the fielding of a system. This was 

justifiably done as a conscious decision to save Warfighter’s lives at the risk of reliability and 

maintainability issues with the equipment fielded. Although the reliability and 

maintainability is currently at a satifactory level, there is no official requirement for 

reliability and maintainability. Thus, a requirement needs to be established to make sure 

unmanned systems have a sufficient emphasis on both. 

 Clash of cultures/force structure issues. Creation of substantive autonomous 

systems/platforms within each domain will create resourcing and leadership challenges for 

all the Services, while challenging their respective Warfighter cultures as well. The 

automating of the actual operation/fighting of platforms will decrease the need for people to 

crew them, while the personnel needed to simply maintain the vehicles is likely to increase. 

This has the potential to radically change the ‘tooth to tail’ personnel ratio in combat forces 

heavily in favor of the support personnel vice combatants, increasing the need for resources 

(people, equipment, money) for the support chain. At the same time, the need for experienced 

middle to senior combatant leaders and decision makers will not change, since they will 

know the tactics and strategies necessary to operate and direct the autonomous systems. The 

challenge will be developing the middle to senior combatant leaders needed in an 

environment allowing fewer junior combatant leaders. Culturally, there will be stresses from 

the potentially significant decrease in the combatant jobs of each Service, e.g. Infantry for the 

Army, pilots for the Air Force, etc. and the attendant reduction in numbers of the main focus 

of each Service, i.e. the combatants. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 40 

 Inefficiencies created by duplicative activities for similar functions. The rapid pace of 

technology change, coupled with the demands of seeking ways to use technology to save 

both Warfighter and noncombatant lives as soon as possible and the non-robust coordination 

across current activities/domains has caused some duplication of functions across the 

domains. This has often kept stakeholders unaware of other’s efforts, thus creating some 

duplication. 

 Coordination across current activities/domains is not robust (often stakeholders 

unaware of other’s efforts)/Parochialism. Coordination across current activities/domains is 

not institutionalized. This can and does lead to duplication of effort, and can possibly create 

gaps in filling the capability needs of the Warfighter. 

 Pockets of advocacy/no broad spectrum of acceptance/no consistent top level advocacy 

(at Service Headquarters level). The Combatant Commands, their components, and the 

individual Services have embraced unmanned systems philosophically because they are a 

capability multiplier and can reduce risk to personnel. However, when the procurement of 

unmanned systems threaten manned systems budgets or career paths of manned systems 

operators, the manned systems invariably win out due to vocal and forceful remonstrations 

by the threatened communities. Unmanned systems offer as yet largely unseen operational 

capabilities, and these pockets of resistance need to be addressed and eliminated, for the 

overall good of the Joint Force. 

 No defined career paths and accepted advocacy for unmanned career path. The lack of 

an established operational community for unmanned systems impedes the migration of 

careers of Warfighters assigned to unmanned operations. A defined career field with 

opportunities for Warfighter advancement in organizational structure is required to 

demonstrate the viability of a career associated with unmanned systems. 

 Limited formalized unmanned systems courses within Professional Military Education 

(PME). PME may identify unmanned systems as tools for Joint commanders to employ, but 

actual curriculum that explores the best employment and integration of unmanned systems 

into the force structure is elementary at best. 

 Lack of full vetting through developmental/operational test may require changes to 

training and retrofit of fielded systems. Unmanned systems have historically been fielded 

at times without going through a full vetting in developmental/operational testing. While this 

was done with full and good justification, weaknesses in the system appear later when 

actually fielded, causing the Services to have to go back and fix the issues after the fielding, 

incurring added costs and burdens on the acquisition and logistics systems of each Service. 

 Industry lacks full understanding of DoD unmanned systems needs. The acquisition 

process must respond more quickly to Warfighter needs and protect government interests. 

The inability of the JCIDS system to keep pace with the rapid rate of change of Warfighter 

needs for the GWOT has resulted in unmanned system requirements that are driven by what 

is demonstrated by vendors rather than vendors developing systems based on DoD 

requirements. 

 Integration of command and control of unmanned systems within existing and future 

battle command systems not well understood. The integration of the products provided to 

battle command systems by unmanned systems and their distribution to the Warfighter is not 

optimal. Planned systems with greater capability will need to have the distribution and 

execution architecture defined prior to development if the Department expects to realize their 

full potential. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 41 

 Operational risk with unmanned systems in the presence of environmental and/or 

deliberate adversarial actions. Adversary actions that would deny the use of unmanned 

systems by the Warfighter are of concern. These actions include but are not limited to: denial 

of use, sabotage/destruction of platforms, and enemy use of system against friendly forces. 

Environmental conditions, such as precipitation, sand storms or solar activity may degrade 

command, control and use of sensors on unmanned systems. 

 Trust of unmanned systems is still in infancy in ground and maritime 

domains...stronger in air domain, but still difficult to fly in U.S. airspace (trust of 

military as well as civilian populations). Unmanned systems are still a relatively new 

concept to most of the civilian population. As a result, there is a natural fear of a new and 

unproven technology with concerns about safety. This in turn creates difficulties for the 

Services to obtain approvals for proper test and evaluation of new systems, or in some cases, 

support for resourcing the acquisition of a new system.

 Misinformed expectations for capabilities and efficiencies. Perceptions of the current 

capabilities of unmanned systems are often derived from information/images from other less 

authoritative sources, such as popular movies or books, or from over-enthusiastic vendors. 

This can lead the Warfighter to identify a required capability that is beyond the ability of 

current or projected technology to satisfy, and subsequent dissatisfaction with actual systems. 

 Operations. As UAS continue to proliferate across the battle space, the value they bring to 

the fight continues to grow and new capabilities are being explored. However, until there is a 

methodology that uses technology, policies, or a procedures solution, expansion into civil 

airspace will continue to be severely restricted. This has and will continue to have negative 

impacts on both aircrew training and UAS system testing until there is a resolution. There are 

various systems, both on and off board, and policy changes being explored to allow 

incremental access to the civil airspace system. 

The risks identified consist of the following: 

 Future expectations for long-duration employment of unmanned systems cannot be 

supported by current energy sources. The volume and length of mission times required 

when combined, exceed the ability of current technology to support. This may lead to a 

decrease in the capabilities actually fielded, either in quantity or in length of mission 

capabilities.

 Commercial enterprise for unmanned systems is in its infancy. As a relatively new 

technology, unmanned systems are undergoing rapid change. This increases the likelihood, 

given the vagaries of the DoD acquisition system, of a system being technologically obsolete 

by the time it is fielded. 

 Lack of stable and robust industrial base. Due to the immature nature of unmanned 

systems, a stable and robust industrial base that insures a dependable source of systems in 

volume has not yet come into existence. This has the potential of creating shortfalls in 

required capabilities or the lack of a source for a system following fielding. 

 Lack of sufficient dedicated operational frequencies for unmanned systems. The 

Warfighter, in embracing the positive aspects of unmanned systems, envisions deployments 

in numbers that may overwhelm the current capability of current RF, UHF, and VF systems 

to maintain communications with them. Satellite systems need to be able to control and 

disseminate collected data for future unmanned systems use. This may require curtailing the 

volume of fieldings of some systems until an alternate control method is established. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 42 

 Unmanned systems treaty issues 

− Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 2060.1 directs that, “all DoD activities shall be 

fully compliant with arms control agreements of the U.S. Government.”1

 Additionally 

DoDD 5000.1 directs that the, “acquisition and procurement of DoD weapons and 

weapon systems shall be consistent with all applicable domestic law and treaties and 

international agreements”2 and that, “an attorney authorized to conduct such legal 

reviews in the Department shall conduct the legal review of the intended acquisition of 

weapons or weapons systems.” U.S. Government (USG) arms control agreements 

concerning unmanned vehicle systems (UVS) include the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), 

the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Treaty on Conventional Armed 

Forces in Europe (CFE), the Vienna Document 1999 (VDOC), Intermediate-Range 

Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), Global Exchange of Military Information (GEMI), and the 

United Nations Transparency in Armaments Resolution (UNTIA). Conventional arms 

agreements that do not name UVS, but mention military air and ground vehicles include 

CFE, VDOC, INF, GEMI, and UNTIA. Conventional arms agreements that address UVS 

directly include WA and MTCR. 

− WA controlled dual-use items include UVS in item ML 10(c) munitions list 9.A.12., and 

technology applicable to UVS in 9.D.1., 9.E.3., and 9.D.2. MTCR restricts UVS as a 

Category I item in sec. 1.A.2., provided that the UAS can carry a 500kg payload for 

300km. MTCR Category II items, under section 19.A.2. and 19.A.3, include technology 

and equipment that may be used in Category I UVS. 

− CFE Articles I and II obligate participant adherence and define conventional weapons 

that, within the area of application, are subject to terms of reduction and limits outlined in 

arts. IV-VI. UVS may, subject to review, meet the definitions of conventional armaments 

and equipment subject to the Treaty. Also subject to review, VDOC may require USG to 

report combat equipment and/or new weapons systems as they fall under art. I, paras. 

10.2.5., 10.5., 11.2., and follow-on items of the VDOC. Ground launched cruise missiles 

(GLCM) are restricted by INF in art. II, para. 2, however, air-to-surface weapons are not 

considered under the INF treaty. UVS which are not ground launched, or take off without 

the aid of launching equipment, and are designed to return from mission, do not fall 

within the definition of a GLCM. GEMI requires the USG to share information on 

holdings of major weapons and equipment systems listed under para. 3. Air and ground 

vehicles, irrespective of manned or unmanned, may, upon review, fall under the 

categories of major weapon and equipment systems subject to information sharing under 

para. 3 of GEMI. Under the UNTIA Annex, Register of Conventional Arms, UVS, 

subject to review, may meet the definitions of items defined in 2.a., “concerning 

international arms transfers.” 

 Diminishing Federal budgets and unstable funding lines. The lack of stable funding will 

make industrial investment less likely and inhibit new technology development for DoD 

applications. 

 Requirements for communications systems on the future battlefield cannot be met. 

Commercial use of frequencies previously or currently used by military operations will 

increase in the future. Physics limits the available bandwidth available for all uses. New 

 

1

 DoDD 2060.1, para. 3.3.1, Jun. 9, 2001. 

2

 DoDD 5000.1, para E1.1.15. Legal Compliance, May 12, 2003. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 43 

utilization methods need to be formulated to increase the throughput for C2 and data link 

signals. 

Recommended Actions 

During the development of this Roadmap, several issues were identified that will require 

additional time to address and thus could not be included in this version. Some of these items 

will require policy/guidance, while others will require actions be taken. Below is the list of those 

recommended actions. All have been synchronized with the vision, goals and objectives, and 

strengths, opportunities, challenges and risks found elsewhere in this document. Metrics in terms 

of exit criteria, target date and responsible organization have been identified for each action for 

tracking purposes. 

Priority Action Exit Criteria 

Target 

Date 

Responsible 

Org 

1 DoD establish an annual review and assessment of 

unmanned activities across domains to include: 

 Assessments against Goals and Objectives 

metrics. 

 Assessment of DoD investment in unmanned 

technology development. 

 Synchronization, adjudication, and advocacy for 

continued development and employment of 

unmanned systems. 

 Brief results at Service and COCOM FOGO 

conferences. 

Annual data tasking, 

review process 

established, and 

goals and objectives 

metrics collected 

Release + 

1 year 

AT&L PSA 

2 Establish a technology criticality assessment 

process to ensure COCOM S&T advisors have 

continued awareness of unmanned technology 

developments. 

Publish a 

coordinated process 

and task COCOMs 

to conduct an 

assessment 

Release + 

3 months 

DAU/J8 

3 Coordinate with the FAA to address the use of 

national airspace issue. 

File and fly 

operations for UAS 

in the NAS outside 

of Restricted 

airspace and a 

phase out of current 

COA process. 

Unknown Policy Board on 

Federal Aviation 

(PBFA) 

4 Emphasize, synchronize, and coordinate R&D 

investment into non-RF comms and better utilization 

of RF bandwidth. 

FYDP strategy 

published 

PB12 Services 

5 Harmonize SAE/AS-4 standard with NATO 

STANAG 4586 and establish path for common 

architecture across all domains. 

Single standard 

across all domains 

Unknown PSA 

6 Investigate need for policy mandating adherence to 

key unmanned standards (to include Objective 4.2 

& 6.1). 

Standards identified 

and policy published 

Release + 

6 months 

AT&L 

7 Encourage more deliberate licensing and transfer of 

GFE and GFI to industry and academia by: 

 Identifying a list of relevant technologies and 

establishing mechanism for promulgation. 

 Encouraging maximum use of Open standards to 

minimize the need for licensing. 

 Exploring the need to require the planning and 

execution of a technology transfer plan for each 

new acquisition by the respective acquisition 

communities. 

Address as 

appropriate in desk 

book guidance 

8 Research alternative energy sources. FYDP strategy 

published 

PB12 Services 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 44 

Priority Action Exit Criteria 

Target 

Date 

Responsible 

Org 

9 Propose appropriate experimentation by JFCOM to 

support operational concept development 

employing unmanned systems. Establish process 

by which promising and near-term unmanned 

technologies can be played in the experimentation. 

Provide output of experimentation, etc., to transition 

plans. 

Experimentation 

plan 

Release + 

1 year 

JFCOM 

10 Conduct analysis to determine cost associated with 

retrofit of systems in training, sustainment, RAM 

that were rapidly fielded absent formal DT/OT. 

Provide results to support future programming 

decisions. 

Completion of 

system analysis 

PB12 PSA 

11 Investigate appropriate use of Title 3 funding to 

stabilize select unmanned systems product lines. 

Recommended 

application of Title 3 

funding against 

appropriate product 

lines 

Release + 

1 year 

AS&C 

12 Data-mine and consolidate UAS lessons learned for 

distribution to fellow domains. 

Publish lessons 

learned 

Release + 

3 months 

JUAS-COE/ 

JFCOM JCOA 

13 Data-mine and consolidate UGV lessons learned for 

distribution to fellow domains. 

Publish lessons 

learned 

Release + 

3 months 

JFCOM JCOA 

14 Data-mine and consolidate Maritime lessons 

learned for distribution to fellow domains. 

Publish lessons 

learned 

Release + 

3 months 

JFCOM JCOA 

15 Pursue the possibility of inserting promising, 

reasonably mature unmanned systems technologies 

into partner nations exercises for initial operational 

assessments. 

Unmanned systems 

participation in 

COCOM exercises 

Unknown COCOMs-J7/J9 

AS&C 

16 Reconcile/recommend consolidation of systems. Study completed to 

identify viable 

courses of action 

Release + 

1 year 

J8 

17 Coordinate and communicate with industry 

associations and organizations to promulgate 

Roadmap and other relevant capability gaps and 

needs documentation and solicit feedback. 

Provide Roadmap 

publication to 

industry associations 

and organizations 

Release + 

1 month 

PSA 

18 Continue engagement with civilian organizations 

(DHS, DOT) and industry organizations (AUVSI, 

NDIA, etc) to increase awareness and public 

knowledge and support appropriate policy 

development to foster greater trust in unmanned 

systems. Create a policy memo that designates 

appropriate participation in specific unmanned 

systems conferences/workshop/symposia/etc. and 

vets the conferences. 

 Speaking at 

civilian 

organization 

sponsored 

venues 

 Publish policy 

memo" 

 Ongoing 

 Release 

+ 6 

months" 

PSA/Public 

Affairs 

19 Participate in user conferences (AUSA, Navy 

League, Association of Naval Aviation, Submariners 

Association, Marine Corps Association, AFA) to 

inform Warfighters of appropriate expectations for 

capabilities and efficiencies. 

Speaking at user 

conferences 

Ongoing Unmanned 

Systems Domain 

Stakeholders 

20 Engagement of industry and academia to ensure 

understanding that Department investment in 

unmanned systems will continue even under 

decreased budgets. 

Speaking at industry 

and academia 

Ongoing Unmanned 

Systems Domain 

Stakeholders 

21 Deliberately foster military academy students 

summer internships with DoD labs and unmanned 

systems organizations. 

Increased academy 

student participation 

in DoD unmanned 

systems labs and 

organizations 

Unknown PSA/Service 

Academies 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 45 

Priority Action Exit Criteria 

Target 

Date 

Responsible 

Org 

22 Foster increased awareness in robotics at the 

Service academies via annual robotics 

day/presentations/competitions. 

Speaking at Service 

academies 

Unknown PSA/Service 

Academies 

23 Coordinate with the Department of Transportation 

on the use of national highways by unmanned 

systems. 

Operation of 

unmanned systems 

on national highways

Unknown JGRE 

Table 12. Recommended Actions 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 46 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 47 

CHAPTER 4. ADVANCING UNMANNED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES

Unmanned Systems Technology Enablers 

A primary objective for achieving Goal 1 in this Roadmap is the continued development of 

appropriate unmanned systems technology. Mapping unmanned systems to joint capability areas 

and projecting the needed performance envelope for those proposed systems provided the 

underpinning for identifying key pacing technologies that must be developed. What is identified in 

this Roadmap is by no means an exhaustive list, but it does provide a sense of scope of technical 

endeavor that will be needed to achieve the future vision for employment of unmanned systems. 

The relative maturity of the technologies addressed in this Chapter run the gamut from those that 

will need to be started in the Tech Base via 6.1 Basic Research and 6.2 Applied Research 

funding, to those that simply require maturation to go from demonstration in a laboratory setting 

to demonstration in a more operationally relevant environment. Generally, those technologies 

identified in the earlier years will require less Tech Base funding, while those technologies 

identified at the far end of the 25 year period are almost universally in need of at least 6.2 

Applied Research funding. Although everything discussed in this Chapter is a technology 

germane to advancing unmanned systems, what is not identified are those technologies that will 

be needed by unmanned systems but are also applicable across a wide range of applications. 

Therefore, this Roadmap does not address such technologies as lighter-weight, higher strength 

materials, non-corrosive materials, diagnostic sensing, etc. Each of these technologies will be 

desirous in an unmanned system, but they are not unique to unmanned systems and thus have not 

been specifically addressed in this document. 

That these technologies are identified in this Roadmap does not imply that DoD must be the sole 

source of their development. Industry is starting to perceive robotics and autonomy as an 

emerging commercial market, thus the Department will be able to position itself to leverage 

Industry Independent Research and Development (IR&D). Cleaning is an example of where 

industry has already made investment into commercial applications for robotics. Thus, the DoD 

could likely satisfy reduced manning requirements aboard future naval vessels by leveraging 

commercial cleaning robots. Certain technologies that are applicable to unmanned systems can 

also be leveraged from other applications. Advanced prosthetics is an example of a potential 

source of manipulation technology. While those organizations advancing the technology of 

prosthetics are primarily motivated by replacing human limbs, there will likely be many 

opportunities to adapt that technology to satisfy requirements for highly dexterous manipulation 

by unmanned systems. 

While this Roadmap gives an indication of when these technologies can reasonably be matured, 

they are projections at best. The rate at which technologies can be developed is highly dependent 

upon available funding and the inherent risks associated with the understanding of the basic 

science of the technology itself. This chapter collectively represents the technologies 

recommended for development by this Roadmap, but does not represent a programming plan for 

funding of these technologies. As with all Tech Base and Applied Technology Development 

funding in the Department, funding must be secured via the PPBE (Planning, Programming, 

Budgeting and Execution) process, taking into account all technology investments that are 

important to the Defense mission. 

Aligning Common Technologies 

Figure 8 provides a summary of the identified key technologies that are applicable across each 

of the domains. It should be noted that while certain technologies lend themselves to application 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 48 

across all domains, the specific instantiation of the technology may vary from one domain to 

another. An example is voice command of an unmanned system. The actual technology that 

enables voice command of a UGV may be significantly different from the technological solution 

employed for UUVs. What is important is the recognition that there are opportunities for 

aligning technology investments to achieve a common solution across domains vice investing in 

domain-unique solutions to the same problem. The approach to investing in these particular 

technologies should be to first attempt a solution that is successful across all the domains. If that 

is not feasible, then the next step is to look for ways of adapting a technology that is successful in 

one domain for use in another. If either of the first two approaches is not feasible, then unique 

solutions will be needed, but deliberate consideration has been given to avoiding duplication of 

effort across the domains. 

The types of technologies that have the potential for application across all domains include 

power grazing, alternative energy sources enabling long mission endurance, dynamic obstacle 

detection, dynamic detection and avoidance, collaborative tactical teaming, etc. It is expected 

that the underlying technology will likely be common, with only the means of integrating the 

technology into the specific platforms requiring unique solutions. 

Figure 8. Technology Enablers Common to All Domains 

Key/Pacing Technologies 

Figures 9 and 10 provide a summary of the key technologies that will need to be developed 

specifically to the individual domains. The technologies addressed in this section differ from the 

technologies addressed in the previous section in that the uniqueness of the domain drives the 

need for the specific technology. The software algorithms needed to enable a small UGV to 

navigate in complex terrain are unlikely to have any application for a high altitude, long 

endurance UAS. Likewise, the technology needed to enable navigation in strong underwater 

currents is not likely to have applicability for a decontamination ground robot. The technologies 

recommended in this section of the Roadmap are needed precisely because of the environment in 

which the unmanned systems will be required to operate within. 

Air Domain 

Some key technologies that will enable future UAS include lightweight, long endurance battery 

and/or alternative power technology, effective bandwidth management/data compression tools, 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 49 

stealth capability and collaborative or teaming technologies that will allow UAS to operate in 

concert with each other and with manned aircraft. A critical enabler allowing UAS access to U.S. 

National and ICAO airspace will be a robust on-board sense and avoid technology. The ability of 

UAS to operate in airspace shared with civil manned aircraft will be critical for future peacetime 

training and operations. There is also a need for open architecture systems that will allow 

competition among many different commercial UAS and ground control systems allowing DoD 

to “mix and match” the best of all possible systems on the market. Technology enablers in 

propulsion systems coupled with greater energy efficiency of payloads are required to extend 

loiter time and expand the missions of UAS to include Electronic Attack and directed energy. 

Figure 9. Air Domain Technology Enablers 

Ground Domain 

The key technologies that enable UGVs include complex world modeling, ground based hazard 

detection (e.g., mines, explosives), lane detection/road following, anti-tamper/self protection, 

highly dexterous manipulation, collaborative teaming in urban environments, etc. Of particular 

note among ground systems is the requirement for anti-tampering. In no other environment is an 

unmanned system more vulnerable to human tampering than when on the ground. It is 

imperative for the success of UGV operation that it be invested with the ability to deter humans 

from interfering with its activities, as well as from tampering with or damaging it via close 

physical contact (the exception being the employment of weapons). Also, lane detection and road 

following are performances that will only be called upon for UGVs, as it is expected that many 

operational scenarios will call for the UGV to travel over existing roads. Collaborative teaming 

in urban terrain will drive the development of communications that will not be disrupted by 

urban canyons, precise positioning, and mobile agility for climbing curbs, stairs, rubble, etc. 

Figure 10. Ground Domain Technology Enablers 

Maritime Domain 

The unique maritime domain creates the need for critical technology enablers to be integrated on 

UUVs and USVs. Environmental conditions such as increasing levels of sea state, currents, 

bathymetry (a key attribute being data collection in denied areas), weather conditions, and 

contact density present unique challenges for unmanned maritime systems operation. These 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 50 

conditions will require greater energy densities and more efficient and capable propulsion to 

support the increase in maneuverability without degrading mission endurance. Operations in high 

sea states will induce requirements for better stability during surface operations and more 

reliable communications antennas and systems. Shallow water operations will require more 

accurate navigational systems and improved guidance and control systems. Increased sea states 

and currents will require improved launch and recovery systems on the host ship or an alternative 

launch and recovery technique. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 51 

APPENDIX A. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) 

A.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

A.1.1 A160 Hummingbird 

User Service: Army, Navy, DARPA 

Manufacturer: Boeing 

Inventory: Turboshaft variant: 6 Delivered/7 Planned; Gasoline variant: 3 Delivered/0 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: A160 Hummingbird is a long endurance VTOL UAS using a revolutionary Optimum Speed Rotor 

(OSR), low drag configuration, and high fuel fraction to enable much longer endurance than conventional 

helicopters. In addition, it uses a stiff-in-plane rotor to enable fast reaction to gust loads. 

Characteristics:

A160 Hummingbird 

Length 35 ft Rotorspan 36 ft 

Gross Weight 5600 lb Payload Capacity 300–1000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 2700 lb Fuel Type JP 

Engine Make Pratt& Whitney PW207D Power 572 hp 

Data Link(s) Boeing Frequency Ku 

Performance:

Endurance 20 hr at 500 nm with 300 lb Maximum/Loiter Speeds 140/60 kt 

Ceiling >15,000 ft hover; 

30,000 ft cruise Radius >1,000 nm 

Takeoff Means Hover or short taxi Landing Means Hover or ground roll 

Sensor (current) EO/IR Sensor Make WESCAM 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 52 

A.1.2 Aerosonde 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation 

Inventory: 1 System Planned (5 to 8 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; System Under Lease 

Background: Aerosonde is a long-endurance (38-hour) SUAS. Aerosonde can 

carry a family of compact payloads including television cameras, IR cameras, 

ESM, or jammer electronics. Aerosonde is currently operating at the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Wallops Island Flight 

Facility; at an arctic facility in Barrow, Alaska; and at two locations in 

Australia. The ONR purchased several aircraft along with services for 

instrument and payload development. Aerosonde flies from Guam under the 

Air Force Weather Scout Foreign Cooperative Test. 

Characteristics: 

Aerosonde 

Weight 33 lb Payload Capacity 12 lb 

Length 5.7 ft 

Wingspan 9.4 ft Engine Type Gasoline 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 20,000 ft 

Radius 1000 nm 

Endurance 30 hr 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 53 

A.1.3 Aqua/Terra Puma 

User Service: SOCOM and Army 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 0 systems 

Status: NPOR; Under Evaluation 

Background: The Puma is an 

evolution of AeroVironment’s earlier 

Pointer hand-launched design and 

comes in two variants: Aqua Puma for 

use in a marine environment and Terra 

Puma for land use. It is under 

evaluation by the Army’s Natick Laboratory and is fielded with support for one year only at this time. 

Characteristics: 

Aqua/Terra Puma 

Weight 14 lb Payload Capacity 2–4 lb 

Length 5.9 ft 

Wingspan 8.5 ft Engine Type Battery 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft 

Radius 6 nm 

Endurance 2.5 hr 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 54 

A.1.4 Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle (BATMAV) – WASP III 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment, INC 

Inventory: One per team / total purchase 200 plus 

Status: POR 

Background: The BATMAV UAS features the expendable BATMAV Air Vehicle (AV), a Ground Control Unit 

(GCU), and Communications Ground Station (CGS). BATMAV is a collapsible lightweight AV with a two-bladed 

propeller driven by a small electric motor. The BATMAV is equipped with an internal Global Positioning System / 

Inertial Navigation System, autopilot and two on-board cameras. The entire system can function autonomously from 

takeoff to recovery, or be controlled by one operator using a handheld remote control unit. The United States Air 

Force’s Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle (BATMAV) Small Unmanned Aircraft System provides realtime direct situational awareness and target information for Air Force Special Operations Command Battlefield 

Airmen. The BATMAV (WASP III) falls into the class of Air Force small UAS known as micro UAS. The 

BATMAV originated from a combat need for Combat Controllers and Tactical Air Control Party Airmen to carry 

equipment needed to engage enemy forces and protect themselves. 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10469 

Characteristics/Performance: 

WASP III 

Length 11.5 in (29.2 cm) Wing Span 16.5 inches (41.9 cm) 

Gross Weight 1 lb (453 grams) Payload Capacity High Resolution EO/IR 

Engine Make 

Electric motor, 

rechargeable lithium ion 

batteries 

Frequency L-Band 

Data Link(s) LOS 500 ft above ground level 

Speed 40 + mph Operating Altitude 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 55 

A.1.5 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS 

UAS) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 0 Delivered/68 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The BAMS UAS is an ACAT 1D program to develop, 

produce and field a tactical multiple-sensor, persistent maritime and 

littoral ISR UAS for use by supported commanders. The BAMS UAS 

will be a force multiplier for the Joint Forces and fleet commanders: it 

will enhance battle space awareness, shorten the sensor-to-shooter kill 

chain, and operate both independently and cooperatively with other assets 

to provide a more effective and supportable persistent maritime and 

littoral ISR capability than currently exists. The BAMS UAS can also 

provide a basic airborne communications and data relay capability. 

BAMS UAS collected data will support a variety of intelligence activities 

and nodes and in a secondary role, the BAMS UAS may also be used 

alone or in conjunction with other assets to respond to theater level, 

operational, or national strategic tasking. The BAMS UAS will be a Navy fleet asset for operational and tactical 

users. The BAMS UAS will serve as an adjunct to the P-8A to leverage the unique attributes of each platform, 

optimizing the family-of-systems approach to contribute to dominant maritime domain awareness. Collocation of 

BAMS UAS mission crews with Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force (MPRF) will provide operator synergy, 

allowing close coordination of missions and leveraging of common mission support infrastructure. The BAMS UAS 

also complements the current national, theater, and other Military Department collection systems by providing 

persistent ISR in the maritime and littoral areas 24 hours a day. The BAMS UAS will provide DoD with a unique 

capability to persistently detect, classify, and identify maritime targets within a large volume of the maritime battle 

space. The BAMS UAS program entered SDD on 18 April 2008 and awarded a System Development and 

Demonstration (SDD) contract to Northrop Grumman Corporation on 22 April 2008 following a full and open 

competition. System Design activities began in August 2008 and the program is progressing towards a System 

Requirements Review in January 2009. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is anticipated in 2015 with the standup 

of the first orbit. The remaining orbits are anticipated to stand up on a 1 per year basis thereafter, leading to Full 

Operational Capability in 2019. The BAMS UAS air vehicle is 78% common by weight with the USAF RQ-4B 

Global Hawk and also leverages sensor and graphic user interface commonality with other systems throughout DoD. 

http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma262/ 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 56 

A.1.6 Buster 

User Service: SOCOM and Army 

Manufacturer: Mission Technologies 

Inventory: 5 Planned (4 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; Under Evaluation 

Background: BUSTER is a SUAS on contract with the Army Night 

Vision Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is using BUSTER as a 

testbed for sensors. Nine systems were delivered in 2007. Other current contracts are with the U.K. Ministry of 

Defense Joint UAS Experimentation Programme (JUEP), with BUSTER training being conducted for the Royal 

Artillery, the Royal Air Force, and the SOF. 

Characteristics: 

Buster 

Weight 10 lb Payload Capacity 3.0 lb 

Length 41 in 

Wingspan 49.5 in Engine Type Gasoline/JP-5 & JP-8 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft 

Radius 6 nm 

Endurance 4+ hr 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 57 

A.1.7 XM-156 Class I 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Honeywell 

Inventory: 90 systems per Future Combat System, Brigade Combat Team; planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The Class I UAS 

provides the ground Soldier with 

RSTA. The Class I uses autonomous 

flight and navigation, and operates on 

the FCS network. With the Class I 

UAS, the soldier always has the ability 

to dynamically update routes and target 

information. The Class I UAS provides 

dedicated reconnaissance support and 

early warning to the platoon and 

company level of the Brigade Combat 

Team in environments not suited for 

larger assets. It is man packable and 

rapidly deployable and has hover & 

stare capability. It has an integrated 

EO/IR/LD/LRF Sensor and 10 hp heavy fuel engine. The 10 hp heavy fuel engine will provide significantly reduced 

audibility levels over its gas engine predecessor. The Class I UAS utilizes a 1 channel JTRS SFF-D radio. The Class 

I UAS system includes one air vehicle, a small set of ancillary/support equipment and a Centralized Controller (CC) 

to navigate the Class I air vehicle. The CC is intended to provide the FCS Brigade Combat Team’s dismounted 

soldier with a single hand-held device that can command and control not only for the Class I UAS but also for 

several other FCS platforms such as Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs). The CC will readily access the FCS 

Network which requires it to host and access most portions of Battle Command, Network Management System, and 

System-of-systems Common Operating Environment (SOSCOE) software at unclassified and collateral levels and 

utilizes a 2 channel JTRS SFF-B radio to communicate with the Class I UAS. Upcoming milestones for CL I are the 

following: First Risk Reduction Flight – 1QFY10; Critical Design Review (CDR) – 4QFY10; First SDD Flight – 

1QFY12; LUT – 1QFY13; Initial Operating Capability (IOC) – 3QFY15. 

Characteristics:

XM 156 

Weight 32.5 lb Payload 8.5 

Length 36 in (Diameter from Landing 

Gear Tips) 

Wingspan 18-in duct diameter 

Engine Type Heavy fuel turbine 

Performance:

Ceiling ~11,000 ft 

Radius ~8 km 

Endurance ~60 min 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 58 

A.1.8 Combat Medic Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for Resupply and 

Evacuation 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: TBD Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The purpose of this research project is to design, develop, and demonstrate enabling technologies for 

delivery of medical supplies and Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) systems by UAS platforms to 

combat medics for treatment, stabilization, and subsequent evacuation of combat casualties from hostile situations. 

The key research foci are advanced technologies for (a) autonomous UAS takeoff, landing, and navigation in urban 

and wooded terrain and (b) collaboration and coordination between human combat medics and UAS ground 

controllers so that appropriate first responder care and evacuation can be performed during the so-called “golden 

hour” of combat casualty care. Five Phase I SBIR contracts were awarded in FY2007 in which notional concepts of 

operations will be developed as well as technical models that identify and translate functional requirements into 

implementable UAS system designs. Only limited technology demonstrations are envisioned in Phase I. This phase 

includes the development and demonstration of prototypes that are expected to demonstrate the following tasks: (1) 

Navigate through urban or wooded terrain to a site of combat injury; (2) Select a suitable site for autonomous 

landing and takeoff with minimal human team member/operator guidance; (3) Safely land and take off 

autonomously; (4) Communicate with human medic team members; and (5) Carry a payload of medical supplies, 

including an LSTAT system, to the site of injury. This is currently a Joint (Office of the Secretary of Defense 

[OSD]-sponsored) SBIR effort being administered by the Army but in coordination with the Navy and Marine 

Corps. This concept involves a VTOL aircraft that can carry or ride on the ground on a ground Casualty Evacuation 

(CASEVAC) vehicle. Both vehicles (air and ground) will be capable of either manned or unmanned operation. 

Characteristics:

Combat Medic Unmanned Aircraft System for Resupply and Evacuation 

Length TBD Wing/Rotor Span TBD 

Gross Weight TBD Payload Capacity 500 lb threshold (1 LSTAT) / 

1000 lb objective (2 LSTATs) 

Fuel Capacity TBD Fuel Type TBD 

Performance:

Endurance TBD Max/Loiter Speeds TBD/Hover 

Takeoff Means Hover Landing Means Hover 

Payloads Current: Medical supplies and 1–2 LSTATs 

Planned: CASEVAC UGV 

CASEVAC UAS 

With LSTAT 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 59 

A.1.9 FINDER 

User Service: Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA) and Air Force Special Operations Command 

(AFSOC) 

Manufacturer: Naval Research Laboratory 

Inventory: 8 

Status: NPOR, Chemical Sensor variant from CP2 

ACTD in USAF Residual Status, Spectre-FINDER 

(SWIR/LWIR gimbaled sensor) variant under 

evaluation by AFSOC 

Background: The Flight Inserted Detection 

Expendable for Reconnaissance (FINDER) UAS was 

designed and developed as part of the DTRA’s Second 

Counterproliferation (CP2) ACTD where FINDER was 

configured with a dual ion mobility spectrometer (IMS) 

chemical sensor and sample collector payload. FINDER can be carried aboard an MQ-1 Predator UAS. A Predator 

can carry two FINDERS simultaneously, one on each of the two outboard hard points on the Predator's wing, and 

insert FINDER into the target area where it can intercept and interrogate a post-strike chemical plume and provide 

near real-time detection and identification data over Predator SATCOM. After the CP2 ACTD, DTRA conducted 

the Target Area Strike Support (TASS) program where the chemical sensor payload was replaced by an electrooptical high resolution still imagery payload and demonstrated at Edwards AFB in September of 2005. Following 

this effort, DTRA and the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) initiated the Spectre-FINDER program 

and integrated a gimbaled full motion video payload to satisfy AFSOC’s Off-board Sensing (OBS) requirements. 

Spectre-FINDER is being developed for AFSOC to provide fire support for under the weather and threat standoff 

target positive identification (PID) to increase mission effectiveness. Spectre-FINDER provides real time full 

motion video for day and night operations, the ability to detect and display fielded covert markers and target 

designators, and the ability to disseminate sensor video and metadata using links compatible with fielded DoD 

equipment. Phase IA successfully demonstrated the ground catapult launched FINDER variant at Eglin AFB in 

April 2007 and was the pathfinder to validate the AFSOC Air-launched Small UAS (AL-SUAS) OBS CONOPS. 

For Phase IB, a Predator launched demonstration was planned in the fall of 2008 and included demonstration of 

tandem UAS operations (Predator and FINDER), recovery CONOPS validation, and FINDER airframe and sensor 

upgrades. 

Characteristics:

FINDER 

Length 63 in. Wing Span 103 in. 

Gross Weight 58 lb Payload Capacity 11 lb 

Fuel Capacity 2.4 gal Fuel Type AVGAS (100 octane low 

lead) 

Engine Make 3W Power 2.2 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 to Predator; LOS video to Predator/ground teams; SATCOM from Predator to GIG

Performance:

Endurance 7-9 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 100/55 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft AGL Radius >200 nm 

Takeoff Means Predator MQ-1 Deployed or 

Ground Catapult Landing Means Rolling landing 

Sensors 

IMS Chemical or 

GPS Jammer or 

FMV EO/IR 

Sensor Make Various 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 60 

A.1.10 Global Observer 

User Service: SOCOM, Army, Air Force, DHS, USCG 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 1 Subscale Prototype 

Status: NPOR; Prototype Flying (shown at right); Selected as a 

FY2007 Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) 

Background: Global Observer is a high-altitude endurance 

UAS using liquid hydrogen (LH2) as its fuel. Three variants are 

planned. Its subscale prototype (GO-0 “Odyssey”) made its first 

flight on 26 May 2005 at Yuma Proving Grounds and has flown 

several times since. It uses LH2 to power a full cell that runs 

eight electric motors and has a 50-foot wingspan. Global 

Observer 1 (GO-1), with a 175-foot wingspan and approximately 400 pounds of payload capability, is being built for 

a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. Its initial flight is planned in FY2010. It will use LH2 to power an 

internal combustion engine to run a generator to run four electric motors. Characteristics of the largest planned 

variant (i.e., Global Observer 2 [GO-2]) are listed below: 

Characteristics:

Global Observer-2 

Length 83ft Wing Span 259 ft 

Gross Weight 9098 lb Payload Capacity >1000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 2100 lb Fuel Type LH2 

Engine Number/Make Internal combustion/fuel cell Power 

LOS/BLOS C2 Ku/Ka-band Data Link(s) LOS video Frequency UHF 

Performance:

Endurance 7+ days Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110 kt 

Ceiling 65,000 ft Radius 10,750 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Payload EO/IR/radar/signals 

intelligence/communications Payload Make TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 61 

A.1.11 Improved Gnat Extended Range (I-Gnat-ER) “Warrior Alpha” / 

Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ER/MP) Block 0 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Atomics 

Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory:

 I-Gnat Aircraft: 3 

 ER/MP A Aircraft: 14 

 ER/MP Block 0: 8 

Background: 

The Army acquired three I-Gnat-ER 

unmanned aircraft and associated support 

equipment in FY2004 as a result of a Congressional plus up. The I-Gnat-ER system was deployed to Iraq to support 

CONOPS development for the Extended Range Multi Purpose program (the program of record). The I-Gnat-ER/ 

Warrior Alpha is slightly larger than the Gnat 750, has external hard points, an unencrypted air-to-air data link 

ability and updated avionics. In FY2005/2006, under direction of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Satellite 

Communications (SATCOM) capability for extended range and the 17-inch Raytheon Multi-spectral Targeting 

System (MTS) sensor/designator was added to the I-Gnat-ER system. This configuration is now referred to as 

“Warrior Alpha.” This system is a multi-mission, multi-payload MTS EO/IR/LASER Range Detector, Designator 

(LRD) and a SAR UAS capable of operations at medium to high altitudes. In 2007, direction was provided to 

weaponize the Warrior Alpha which provided a significant combat multiplier and quick response in the field. 

To provide a more capable ER/MP variant and provide additional risk reduction for ER/MP, a ER/MP Block 0 

production contract was awarded to General Atomics for six aircraft that were delivered in FY08. The ER/MP Block 

0 aircraft provide additional capabilities over its Block A predecessor to include an HFE that provides additional 

horsepower, dual surface flight controls, redundant avionics, additional electrical power and Digital Global 

Positioning System that facilitates an auto-land capability. 

Warrior series aircraft have accumulated more than 75,000 flight hours while deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 

support of the GWOT. 

Characteristics:

I-Gnat-ER “Warrior Alpha”/ Warrior Block 0 

Length 27 ft (Warrior A) / 

28 ft (Warrior 0) Wing Span 55 (Warrior A) / 56 ft (Warrior 0) 

Gross Weight 2300 lbs (Warrior A) 

3000 lbs (Warrior 0) Payload Capacity 450 lbs int./ 300 lbs ext. (A) 575 lbs int. / 500 lbs ext (0) 

Fuel Capacity 625 lb (Warrior A) 

535 lb (Warrior 0) Fuel Type AVGAS (A) / JP-8 (0) 

Engine Make 

Rotax 914 Turbo (Warrior A) / 

Thielert 1.7L Heavy-Fuel 

Engine (Warrior 0) 

Power 115 hp (Warrior A) / 

135 hp (Warrior 0) 

Data Link(s) LOS/SATCOM Frequency C-Band / Ku-Band SATCOM 

Warrior A Performance (Block 0 Performance continuing evaluation): 

Endurance 20+ hrs Maximum/Loiter Speeds 120+/70 kts 

Ceiling 25,000+ ft Radius SATCOM 2500KM/ 

250 KM LOS 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO/IR, SAR Sensor Make MTS-A 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 62 

A.1.12 Maverick 

User Service: DARPA, Army, and Navy 

Manufacturer: Boeing, Frontier, and Robinson 

Inventory: 6 Delivered/6 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Maverick is an unmanned version of the Robinson R22 helicopter. Frontier modified it in 1999 to 

serve as a testbed for developing the control logic for their DARPA A-160 unmanned aircraft effort. Subsequently, 

the Navy decided to acquire four Mavericks in 2003. 

Characteristics:

Maverick 

Length 28.8 ft Rotorspan 25.2 ft 

Gross Weight 1370 lb Payload Capacity 400 lb 

Fuel Capacity 100 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Lycoming 0-360-J2A Power 145 hp 

Data Link(s) TBD Frequency TBD 

Performance:

Endurance 7 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 118/0 kt 

Ceiling 10,800 ft Radius 175 nm 

Takeoff Means Hover Landing Means Hover 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Wescam 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 63 

A.1.13 MQ-1 Predator 

User Service: Air Force, Army, and Navy 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 120+ (all types) Delivered/95 Available/170 Planned 

Status: Program of Record (POR) 

Background: The United States Air Force (USAF) MQ-1 Predator was one of the initial Advanced Concept 

Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) in 1994 and transitioned to an Air Force program in 1997. Since 1995, the 

Predator has flown surveillance missions over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. In 2001, the Air Force added 

a laser designator for use with precision-guided munitions and the ability to employ Hellfire missiles from the 

Predator; these additions led to the change in the Predator’s designation from RQ-1 to MQ-1 to reflect its multimission capability. The Air Force operates three Active component Predator squadrons and three Air National 

Guard Predator squadrons. The MQ-1 fleet reached the 170,000 flight hour mark in July 2006 with over 80 percent 

of the hours in combat. It was declared operationally capable (initial operational capability [IOC]) in March 2005. 

The Navy purchased three RQ-1As for research and development (R&D) as well as training that currently support 

lead-in training for the Air Force MQ-9 Reaper and Army Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) crews. 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122. 

Characteristics: 

MQ-1 B 

Length 27 ft Wing Span 55 ft 

Gross Weight 2250 lb Payload Capacity 450 lb 

Fuel Capacity 640 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Rotax 914F Power 115 hp 

BLOS Ku-band Data Link(s) LOS Frequency C-band 

Performance:

Endurance 24+ hr clean 

16 hr w/external stores Maximum/Loiter Speeds 118/70 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft Radius 500 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

EO/IR Sensor(s) SAR 

Weapons 2xAGM-114 

Sensor Model(s) AN/AAS-52 

AN/ZPQ-1 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 64 

A.1.14 MQ-1C Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ER/MP) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 0 Delivered and 11 systems planned (12 unmanned aircraft per system) 

Background: The MQ-1C ER/MP UAS will provide Division Commanders with a much improved real-time 

responsive capability to conduct long-dwell, wide-area reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, 

communications relay, and attack missions. A difference between the ER/MP and preceding models of ER/MP A is 

its use of a diesel engine to simplify logistics and provide a common fuel on the battlefield. Other major differences 

from the ER/MP A are: the capability to carry multiple payloads and four Hellfire missiles, the use of a Tactical 

Common Data Link, Air Data Relay, Manned/Unmanned Teaming, redundant avionics, near all-weather capability, 

and a One System Ground Control Station that is common to the Hunter and Shadow UAS. The Milestone B 

decision was made on April 20, 2005, for entry into SDD, with contract award to General Atomics in August 2005 

after a competitive down select process. Taking off from an airfield, the ER/MP is operated via the Army’s One 

System GCS and lands via a dual redundant automatic takeoff and landing system. The ER/MP’s payload includes 

Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) with moving target indicator (SAR/MTI) 

capabilities. Additionally, two 250-pound and two 500-pound hard points under the main wings provide an attack 

capability. Seventeen SDD aircraft are being fabricated. Milestone C and LRIP are expected in FY2010. ER/MP 

UAS will be fielded in the Combat Aviation Brigades in each Army division. Current Future Years Defense Plan 

(FYDP) funding supports the SDD phase of the UAS in order to progress through the critical design review, design 

readiness review, fabrication of SDD aircraft and components, Low Rate Initial Production, and Full Rate 

Production. 

Characteristics: 

MQ-1C 

Length 28 ft Wing Span 56 ft 

Gross Weight 3200 lb (Growth to 3,600 lb) Payload Capacity 800 lb/500 lb external 

Fuel Capacity 600 lb Fuel Type Jet petroleum (JP) 8 

Engine Make Thielert diesel Power 135 hp 

BLOS Ku-band 

Data Link(s) LOS Frequency Tactical Common Data Link 

(TCDL) 

Performance: 

Endurance 30+ hr station time at 300 km 

250 lb payload Maximum/Loiter Speeds 150/70 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft Radius 500/1200 km 

(ADR/SATCOM) 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

EO/IR/LRF/LD AN/AAS-53 Sensor SAR/MTI Sensor Make AN/ZPY-1 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 65 

A.1.15 MQ-5B Hunter 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 

 MQ-5B Aircraft: 15 

 RQ-5A Aircraft on contract and in retrofit process to MQ-5B: 20 

 Candidates for retrofits (not on contract): 

 RQ-5B Aircraft: 6 

 MQ-5A Aircraft: 3 

Background: The RQ-5A Hunter originated as a Joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps UAS program. It was terminated 

in 1996, but through the procurement of a limited number of LRIP systems, Hunter continues to provide a valuable 

asset to the Warfighter today. It is currently fielded to INSCOM MI units (Alpha Co 15th MI, Alpha Co 224th Mi 

and Alpha Co 1st MI and the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) training base. Hunter deployed to 

Macedonia to support North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Balkan operations in 1999 through 2002 and to 

Iraq in 2003 and to Afghanistan 2008 where it continues to be used extensively to support combat operations. The 

modernization and retrofit of the original RQ-5A to the MQ-5B was initiated in FY2004. The RQ-5As and MQ-5As 

were phased out of service as units were fielded the MQ-5Bs. The MQ 5Bs are modified with integration of heavy 

fuel engines (HFE), upgraded avionics, and with the addition of an extended center wing, are capable of carrying 

munitions. An ARC-210 Communications Relay Payload package is also available to provide range extension for 

voice communications. The MQ-5B aircraft is operated and controlled by the One System Ground Control Station 

(OSGCS). Hunter aircraft have accumulated over 62,000 flight hours. 

Characteristics: 

MQ-5A MQ-5B MQ-5A MQ-5B 

Length 23 ft 23 ft Wing Span 34.25 ft 34.25 ft 

Gross Weight 1950 lb 1950 lb Payload Capacity 280 lb 280 lb 

Fuel Capacity 280 lb 280 lb Fuel Type JP-8 Diesel II JP-8 Diesel II 

Engine Make HFE (×2) HFE (×2) Power 57 hp (×2) 57 hp (×2) 

Data Link LOS LOS Frequency C-band C-band 

Avionics Legacy Upgraded fuselage Old Retrofitted 

Performance:

Endurance 18 hrs 18 hrs Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110/70 kts 110/70 kts 

Ceiling 18,000 ft 18,000 ft Radius 200 KM 200 KM 

Takeoff Means Runway Runway Landing Means Runway/Wire Runway/Wire 

Sensor EO/IR/VS/CRP EO/IR/LP Sensor Make TAMAM Payloads TAMAM Payloads 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 66 

A.1.16 MQ-8 Fire Scout 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 3 EMD air vehicles with associated ancillary equipment delivered/131 total United States Navy (USN) 

procurement planned (as of 30 Apr 2008). 

Status: POR 

Background: The Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) Tactical UAV (VTUAV) program is currently in EMD. 

The MQ-8B Fire Scout is the aircraft segment of the system. Two RQ-8A air vehicles and four GCSs were used for 

risk reduction testing prior to commencement of MQ-8B flight testing. Over 210 successful test flights have been 

accomplished during the risk reduction phase, demonstrating autonomous shipboard operations, autonomous flight, 

and GCS operations. The Army selected the four-bladed MQ-8B model as its platform for the Future Combat 

Systems unmanned aircraft Class IV system (see XM-157) in 2003. The Navy has selected the MQ-8B to support 

the LCS class of surface vessels. The Navy has also authorized deployment of VTUAV onboard select air capable 

surface combatants while the LCS completes development. The Navy’s VTUAV system includes tactical control 

system (TCS) software within its GCS and supports standards-based interoperability through implementation of 

STANAG 4586 and TCDL. 

Characteristics:

MQ-8B 

Length 22.9 ft Wing Span 27.5 ft 

Gross Weight 3150 lb Payload Capacity 600 lb 

Fuel Capacity 1292 lb Fuel Type JP-5/JP-8 

Engine Make Rolls Royce 250-C20W Power 320 shp continuous 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 Frequency Ku-band/UHF 

LOS video Ku-band 

Performance:

Endurance 6+ hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 117/ hover kt 

Ceiling 20,000 ft Radius 150 nm 

Takeoff Means Vertical Landing Means Hover 

Sensor 

EO/IR/laser designator and 

rangefinder. 

Multi-mode Radar 

Sensor Make FSI Brite Star II 

Radar Block Upgrade in FY 09 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 67 

A.1.17 MQ-9 Reaper (formerly Predator B) 

User Service: Air Force and Navy 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 18 Delivered/90 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The MQ-9 is a medium- to high-altitude, long-endurance UAS. Its primary mission is to act as a 

persistent hunter-killer for critical time-sensitive targets and secondarily to act as an intelligence collection asset. 

The integrated sensor suite includes a SAR/MTI capability and a turret containing electro-optical and midwave IR 

sensors, a laser rangefinder, and a laser target designator. The crew for the MQ-9 is one pilot and one sensor 

operator. The Air Force proposed the MQ-9 system in response to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) request 

for GWOT initiatives in October 2001. In June 2003, ACC approved the MQ-9 CONOPS, and, in February 2004, it 

approved the final basing decision to put the MQ-9 squadron at Creech Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada. The USAF 

activated the first Reaper Squadron (42d Attack Squadron) at Creech AFB on 9 November 2006 with the first MQ-9 

aircraft arriving 13 March 2007. The Reaper's first combat deployment came in September 2007 to Operation 

Enduring Freedom and it recorded its first combat kill in October 2007. As an R&D project, the Navy is acquiring 

one Reaper for demonstrating sensor capabilities and related tactics, techniques, and procedures. The Air and 

Marine Office of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operates its own MQ-9s for border surveillance from 

Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

Characteristics:

MQ-9A 

Length 36 ft Wing Span 66 ft 

Gross Weight 10,500 lb Payload Capacity *3750 lb 

Fuel Capacity 4000 lb Fuel Type JP 

Engine Make Honeywell TPE 331-10Y Power 900 SHP 

BLOS Ku-band Data Link(s) LOS Frequency C-band 

* Up to 3000 lb total externally on wing hard points, 750 lb internal. 

Performance:

Endurance 24 hr/clean 

14–20 hr/external stores Maximum/Loiter Speeds 240/120 kt 

Ceiling 50,000 ft Radius 1655 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

EO/IR/ laser rangefinder/ 

Sensor(s) laser designator 

SAR/MTI 

MTS-B 

Weapons 

GBU-12 Laser Guided Bomb, 

GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack 

Munition, AGM-114 Hellfire Airto-Ground Missile 

Sensor Model(s) 

AN/DAS-1 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 68 

A.1.18 Onyx Autonomously Guided Parafoil System 

User Service: Army (SOCOM) 

Manufacturer: Atair Aerospace, Inc. 

Inventory: 5 Delivered/5 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Onyx is an autonomously guided parafoil system developed by the Army 

Natick Soldier Center. Onyx systems are air-deployed from a C-130, C-141, or C-17 at up 

to 35,000 feet, autonomously glide over 30 miles, and land cargo within 150 feet of a 

target. Cargo for ground forces and SOF includes food and water, medical supplies, fuel, 

munitions, and other critical battlefield payloads. Onyx includes advanced capabilities 

such as flocking (formation flying), active collision avoidance, and adaptive control (selflearning functions). With this technology, multiple systems (50+) can be deployed in the 

same airspace and their payloads guided to one or multiple targets without possibility of 

midair collisions. Smaller versions have been developed to precisely deliver sensors or 

submunitions. 

Characteristics:

Onyx 

Length 45 ft Wing Span 38 ft 

Gross Weight 2300 lb Payload Capacity 2200 lb 

Fuel Capacity N/A Fuel Type N/A 

Engine Make N/A Power N/A 

Performance:

Endurance Varies Maximum/Loiter Speeds 0/70 kt 

Ceiling 35,000 ft Radius 30 nm 

Takeoff Means Airdrop Landing Means Parafoil 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 69 

A.1.19 RQ-11 Pathfinder Raven 

User Service: Army, SOCOM, Air Force, and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 3333 Systems Planned (3 aircraft per system) 

Status: POR; In Production 

Background: The Raven was developed in 2002 from the Flashlight 

SUAS and Pathfinder ACTD. In 2004, the Army introduced the RQ11A Pathfinder Raven as an interim solution to an urgent need for 

unprecedented situational awareness and enhanced force protection at 

the maneuver battalion level and below. This earlier version has logged more than 22,000 hours in support to these 

units in the GWOT. In 2005, the SUAS became a POR and completed Milestone C on 6 October 2005. On 5 

October 2006, the program entered full-rate production, and the RQ-11B is in the process of being fielded to active 

component Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). IOC was reached in 2006. It can either be remotely controlled from its 

ground station or fly completely autonomous missions using global positioning system (GPS). Standard mission 

payloads include EO color video with electronic stabilization and digital Pan-Tilt-Zoom or an IR camera. The Raven 

has flown in excess of 110,000 hours support for deployed forces. 

Characteristics:

RQ-11 Raven 

Weight 4.2 lb Payload Capacity 11.2 oz 

Length 36 in 

Wingspan 55 in Engine Type Direct Drive Electric 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 15,000 ft Endurance 90 min 

Normal Operating Altitude, AGL 500 ft 

Radius 10 km (LOS) Cruise Speed 26 kts 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 70 

A.1.20 RQ-14 Dragon Eye/Swift 

User Service: Marine Corps (Dragon Eye) and SOCOM (Swift) 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 194 Dragon Eye Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) Planned (3 aircraft per system)/33 Swift 

SUAS Planned (4 aircraft per system) 

Status: POR; Production Complete (both models) 

Background: The RQ-14A Dragon Eye fulfills the first tier of 

the Marine Corps Unmanned Aircraft Roadmap by providing 

the company/platoon/squad level with an organic 

reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) 

capability out to 2.5 nautical miles. The first prototype flew in 

May 2000 with low-rate production contracts (40 aircraft) 

awarded to AeroVironment and BAI Aerosystems in July 

2001. In March 2003, the Marine Corps awarded a production 

contract to AeroVironment following a user operational 

assessment. IOC was achieved in 2003. The Dragon Eye 

program has resulted in several variants. The RQ-14B Swift is 

a system composed of a Dragon Eye unmanned aircraft and a 

Raven GCS, Evolution is an export version by BAI, and SeaAll is an Office of Naval Research (ONR) initiative. 

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/factsheets/Dragon%20Eye%20Improvements.pdf 

Characteristics:

RQ-14A Dragon Eye RQ-14B Swift 

Weight 4.5 lb Weight 4.5 lb 

Length 2.4 ft Length 2.4 ft 

Wingspan 3.8 ft Wingspan 3.8 ft 

Payload Capacity 1 lb Payload Capacity 1 lb 

Engine Type Battery Engine Type Battery 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft 

Radius 2.5 nm Radius 2.5 nm 

Endurance 45–60 min Endurance 45–60 min 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 71 

A.1.21 RQ-15 Neptune 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: DRS Unmanned Technologies 

Inventory: 15 Delivered/15 Planned (5 systems) 

Status: POR 

Background: Neptune is a new tactical unmanned aircraft design optimized for at-sea launch/recovery (L&R). 

Carried in a 72′′ × 30′′ × 20′′ case that transforms into a pneumatic launcher, it can be launched from small vessels 

and recovered in open water. It can carry IR or color video sensors or can be used to drop small payloads. Its digital 

data link is designed to minimize multi-path effects over water. First flight occurred in January 2002, and an initial 

production contract was awarded to DRS Unmanned Technologies in March 2002. 

Characteristics:

RQ-15A 

Length 6 ft Wing Span 7 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 20 lb 

Fuel Capacity 18 lb Fuel Type MOGAS 

Engine Make 2 stroke Power 15 hp 

LOS C2 UHF Data Link(s) LOS video Frequency UHF 

Performance:

Endurance 4 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 84/60 kt 

Ceiling 8000 ft Radius 40 nm 

Takeoff Means Pneumatic Landing Means Water/skid/parachute 

Sensor EO or IR Sensor Make DRS 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 72 

A.1.22 Gasoline Micro Air Vehicle (gMAV) 

User Service: Army and Joint EOD 

Manufacturer: Honeywell 

Inventory: 83 Air Vehicles/41 Systems Delivered/166 Additional Systems 

Planned 

Status: Under Evaluation 

Background: The gMAV is a small system suitable for backpack deployment 

and single-person operation. Honeywell was awarded an agreement to develop 

and demonstrate the MAV as part of the MAV ACTD, which pushes the 

envelope in small, lightweight propulsion, sensing, and communication 

technologies. Following its military utility assessment in FY2005-06, gMAV 

systems were transferred to the Army in FY2007 and were deployed to theater 

with the 25th ID. The gMAV has been upgraded to a Block II configuration (also known as FCS Class I Block 0) 

which includes gimbaled sensor and upgraded radios. Block III configuration will include an engine control unit, 

electric starter and electric fueler and is under development for deployment. The Army Evaluation Task Force 

(AETF) is testing a modified version of this system containing Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radios, and 

designated the Class I Block 0 (not a program of record) at Ft Bliss, Texas to further develop tactics, techniques and 

procedures for small VTOL UAV systems. 

Characteristics:

MAV 

Weight 16.5 lb Payload 3 lb (EO or IR) 

Length 15 in Engine Type 2 stroke gas oil mix 

Wingspan 14′′ duct diameter Data Link(s) LOS C2/Video 

Performance:

Ceiling 10,000 ft Endurance ~45 min 

Radius ~8 nm 

Sensor EO or IR Takeoff/Landing Means Vertical 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 73 

A.1.23 RQ-4 Global Hawk 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 12 Delivered/54 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk is a 

high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft 

designed to provide wide area coverage of up to 

40,000 nm2 per day. The size differences between 

the RQ-4A (Block 10) and RQ-4B (Blocks 20, 30, 

40) models are shown in the figure at right and the 

table below. Global Hawk completed its first flight 

in February 1998 and transitioned from an ACTD 

into its Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development (EMD) phase in March 2001. Its 

EO/IR and SAR/MTI sensors allow day/night, allweather reconnaissance. Sensor data are relayed to 

its mission control element, which distributes 

imagery to up to seven theater exploitation systems. 

The first B model, a Block 20, flew its maiden flight 

on March 1, 2007. The Advanced Signals Intelligence Program (ASIP) payload began flight test in May 2007, 

followed by the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) payload in July 2007. Ground 

stations in theaters equipped with the Common Imagery Processor will eventually be able to receive Global Hawk 

imagery directly. The first operational production aircraft, the Block 10 “A model,” deployed in January 2006 to 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and replaced the prototype ACTD configuration, which had been deployed 

there for most of the time since 2001. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175 

Characteristics: 

RQ-4A 

(Block 10) 

RQ-4B 

(Block 20, 30, 40) 

RQ-4A 

(Block 10) 

RQ-4B 

(Block 20, 30, 40) 

Length 44.4 ft 47.6 ft Wing Span 116.2 ft 130.9 ft 

Gross Weight 26,750 lb 32,250 lb Payload Capacity 1950 lb 3000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 14,700 lb 16,320 lb Fuel Type JP-8 JP-8 

Engine Make Rolls Royce 

AE-3007H 

Rolls Royce 

AE-3007H Power, SLS 7600 lb 7600 lb 

LOS LOS UHF UHF 

LOS LOS X-band CDL X-band CDL Data Link(s) BLOS 

(SATCOM) 

BLOS (SATCOM) Frequency 

Ku-band 

INMARSAT 

Ku-band 

INMARSAT 

Performance: 

Endurance 32 hr 28 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 350/340 kt 340/310 kt 

Ceiling 65,000 ft 60,000 ft Radius 5400 nm 5400 nm 

Takeoff 

Means 

Runway Runway Landing Means Runway Runway 

EO/IR EO/IR and signals 

intelligence 

Northrop Grumman Northrop Grumman

Sensor 

SAR/MTI SAR/MTI 

Sensor Make 

Raytheon Raytheon 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 74 

A.1.24 RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/2 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The GHMD program is a non-acquisition demonstration program. Its purpose is to provide the Navy 

with a multi-intelligence, high-altitude, persistent ISR demonstration capability for doctrine; Concept of Operations 

(CONOPS); TTP development; and participation in naval, joint, and homeland defense operations and exercises 

under the operational cognizance of the Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Group (CPRG). The Navy 

contracted with Northrop Grumman through the Air Force Global Hawk program office for the purchase of 

 Two RQ-4A (Block 10) Global Hawks with EO/IR and SAR sensors, 

 Ground control/launch & recovery/support equipment/Tactical Auxiliary Ground Station (TAGS), 

 Engineering to include Navy changes for 

 Maritime sensor modes software (maritime surveillance, target acquisition, inverse SAR), 

 360-degree field-of-regard electronic support measures capability, 

 Satellite and direct data link upgrades, 

 Automatic Identification System (AIS). 

These two unmanned aircraft with sensors and ground control and support equipment are based at the Navy’s 

GHMD main operating base at Patuxent River, Maryland. http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma262/ 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 75 

A.1.25 RQ-7 Shadow 200 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: AAI 

Inventory: 63 Delivered, 115 planned Army systems (4 unmanned aircraft per system) 

Background: The Army selected the RQ-7 Shadow 200 (formerly a Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle [TUAV]) in 

December 1999 to meet the Brigade-level unmanned aircraft requirement for support to ground maneuver 

commanders. The Shadow is rail-launched via catapult system. It is operated via the Army’s One System GCS and 

lands via an automated takeoff and landing system (recovering with the aid of arresting gear) and net. Its gimbaled 

upgraded plug-in optical payload (POP) 300 EO/IR sensor relays video in real time via a C-band LOS data link and 

has the capability for IR illumination (laser pointing). The first upgraded B model was delivered in August 2004 and 

the fleet conversion to the B model was completed the fall of 2006. The RQ-7B has an endurance of 5 to 6 hours onstation (greater fuel capacity), upgraded engine, and improved flight computer. Full-rate production and IOC 

occurred in September 2002. Future upgrades include complete TCDL modernizations and laser designation 

technology. Shadow systems have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terrorism 

(GWOT) and have accumulated more than 327,000 combat flight hours as of November 2008. The Marine Corps 

selected the Shadow to replace its Pioneer UAS in 2006. 

Characteristics: 

RQ-7B 

Length 11.33 ft Wing Span 14 ft 

Gross Weight 375 lb Payload Capacity 60 lb 

Fuel Capacity 73 lb Fuel Type MOGAS/AVGAS 

Engine Make UEL AR-741 Power 38 hp 

LOS C2 S-band UHF Data Link(s) LOS video Frequency C-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 5-6 hrs Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110/60 kts 

Ceiling 14,000+ ft Radius ~125 km 

Takeoff Means Catapult Landing Means Rolling landing/arresting wire 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Tamam POP 300 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 76 

A.1.26 ScanEagle 

User Service: Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

Manufacturer: Insitu Group and Boeing 

Inventory: 2 Systems (8 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; Majority of the Systems are Under Services Contracts 

Background: ScanEagle is a long-endurance SUAS. Six systems are deployed 

in Iraq to provide force protection under service contracts to the Marine Corps, 

twelve have been deployed on Navy ships and four support ground operations, 

and two have been acquired by the Air Force. ScanEagle carries an inertially 

stabilized camera turret for EO/IR imagery. Its sensor data links have integrated 

cursor-on-target capability, which allows it to integrate operations with larger 

UAS such as Predator through the GCS. Its Skyhook (near-vertical recovery 

system) and pneumatic catapult launcher allow operations from ships or from remote, unimproved areas. ScanEagle 

has demonstrated an endurance of 28.7 hours. 

Characteristics:

ScanEagle 

Weight 37.9 lb Payload Capacity 13.2 lb 

Length 3.9 ft 

Wingspan 10.2 ft Engine Type Gasoline 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 16,400 ft Endurance 15 hr 

Radius 60 nm Maximum/Loiter Speeds 70/49 kt 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 77 

A.1.27 Silver Fox 

User Service: Navy, Marine Corps, Army 

Manufacturer: Advanced Ceramics Research (ACR) 

Inventory: 17 Systems Planned (54 total aircraft) 

Status: NPOR; Evaluation Complete 

Background: Silver Fox is a modular unmanned aircraft 

capable of running on either motor gasoline (MOGAS). The 

ONR tested its utility for ship security and harbor patrol. It 

has demonstrated an endurance of 8 hours and control of four airborne aircraft simultaneously. Canada’s armed 

forces have completed a joint evaluation. 

Characteristics:

Silver Fox 

Weight 20 lb Payload Capacity 5 lb 

Length 4.8 ft 

Wingspan 7.8 ft Engine Type gasoline 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 16,000 ft 

Radius 20 nm 

Endurance 8 hr 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 78 

A.1.28 Small Tactical UAS (STUAS)/Tier II UAS 

User Service: Navy and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: Awaiting RFP Release 

Background: The STUAS/Tier II UAS program plans to enter the SDD phase of the acquisition process as an 

ACAT III program per SECNAVINST 5000.2C. STUAS/Tier II UAS is a new start program that will provide 

persistent ISR support for tactical-level maneuver decisions and unit-level force defense and force protection for 

Navy ships and Marine Corps land forces. This system will fill the ISR capability shortfalls identified by the Navy 

STUAS and Marine Corps Tier II UAS efforts and delineated in the JROC-approved Joint Tier II Initial Capabilities 

Document (ICD), which was validated in January 2007. This Joint ICD incorporates Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, 

and SOCOM inputs identifying a joint capability gap set. Consisting of four air vehicles, two GCS, multi-mission 

(plug-and-play) payloads, and associated launch, recovery, and support equipment, this system will support Navy 

missions, including building the recognized maritime picture, maritime security operations, maritime interdiction 

operations, and support of Navy units operating from sea or shore. Marine Corps Tier II UAS will provide a small, 

organic, tactical ISR/Target Acquisition capability to the battalion/regimental/division/ Marine Expeditionary Unit 

commander and enable enhanced decision making and improved integration with ground schemes of maneuver. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 79 

A.1.29 Tactical Mini-Unmanned Air Vehicle (TACMAV) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Applied Research Associates (ARA) 

Inventory: Spiral 1 (6 systems)/Spiral 2 (78 systems) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: In late 2004, the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) leveraged 

an Air Force contract to acquire the TACMAV. After an initial evaluation of six 

Spiral 1 systems, the REF purchased 78 additional TACMAV systems in 

support of OIF and OEF. The cost of each system is $36,000 for a total program 

cost of $3,024,000. The REF is no longer procuring the TACMAV. 

The TACMAV uses flexible wings, which fold around its fuselage, allowing the entire UAS to be stored in a 22-

inch long, 5-inch diameter tube and carried in the user’s backpack. The TACMAV uses a payload pod containing 

two color Charge Couple Device cameras and a video transmitter. The user can select a forward- or side-looking 

camera. The GCU uses the standard Air Force Portable Flight Planning 

System interface for mission planning, in-flight updates, and manual control. 

Platoon, squad, and fire team elements employed the TACMAV for real-time 

reconnaissance and surveillance support. Operational feedback was either 

neutral or negative. Soldiers complained about the poor image and lack of 

stability, grid coordinates, and IR capability. Use of the TACMAV is very 

dependent on weather conditions (wind). Following REF involvement, newer 

configurations made by ARA included an IR camera and longer flight time. 

Characteristics:

TACMAV 

Weight 0.8 lb Payload Capacity 0.1 lb 

Length 19.7 in 

Wingspan 20.9 in Engine Type Electric (Li battery) 

Performance:

Ceiling, MSL 11,000 ft MSL Endurance 25 min 

Radius 1.5 nm Max Airspeed 43 kt 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 80 

A.1.30 Unmanned Combat Aircraft System – Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation (X-47B) 

Inventory: 2 X-47B Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Northrop Grumman X-47B Demonstrator

Background: The program originated as a prototype 

development for the USAF (Boeing) and the USN (Northrop 

Grumman). The two demonstrator programs combined into 

a joint program (Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System 

[J-UCAS]) under Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency management in FY2004 and subsequently 

transferred responsibility to the USAF in FY2006. A PDM 

III and a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) decision resulted in J-UCAS program management and technologies 

transitioning to the Navy UCAS demonstration program, which was restructured as the UCAS-Carrier 

Demonstration (UCAS-D). Northrop Grumman was awarded the UCAS-D contract in August 2007. The UCAS-D 

will not include any mission systems or sensors. First flight is planned for 2010, with sea trials following in 2011 

and a first attempt at a carrier landing in 2012. 

Characteristics:

X47B X47B 

Length 38 ft Wing Span 62 ft 

Gross Weight 46,000 lb Payload 4500 lb 

Fuel Capacity 17,000 lb Fuel Type JP-8 

Engine Make F100-PW-220U Power (SLS) 7600 lb 

Data Link(s) Link 16 Frequency Ku, Ka 

Performance:

Endurance 9 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 460/TBD kt 

Ceiling 40,000 ft Radius 1600 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway/carrier Landing Means Runway/carrier 

Notional Sensor(s) ESM, 

SAR/MTI, EO/IR 

Notional Weapons GBU-31 

Small-diameter bomb 

Notional Sensor Model(s) ALR-69 

TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 81 

A.1.31 Wasp 

User Service: Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: Several hundred air vehicles produced to 

date 

Status: POR 

Background: Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency’s (DARPA’s) Wasp MAV is a small, quiet, 

portable, reliable, and rugged unmanned air platform designed for front-line reconnaissance and surveillance over 

land or sea. Wasp serves as a reconnaissance platform for the company level and below by virtue of its extremely 

small size and quiet propulsion system. DARPA has developed both land and waterproofed versions of Wasp. The 

air vehicle’s operational range is typically up to 3 nautical miles, with a typical operational altitude of 50 to 500 feet 

above ground level. Wasp’s GCS is common to the Raven, Pointer, and other small unmanned aircraft. Wasp is 

hand- or bungee-launched. The Air Force selected Wasp Block III for its BATMAV program. 

Characteristics:

Wasp Block II 

Weight 0.7 lb Payload 0.25 lb 

Length 11 in 

Wingspan 16 in Engine Type Electric (battery) 

Performance:

Ceiling 10,000 ft Endurance 60 min 

Radius 2–3 nm Max/Loiter Speed 15–35 kt 

Sensor Two color video cameras Sensor Make 

Characteristics:

Wasp Block III 

Weight 1.0 lb Payload 0.25 lb 

Length 11 in Engine Type Electric (battery) 

Wingspan 28.5 in 

Performance:

Ceiling 10,000 ft Endurance 45 min 

Radius 3 nm Max/Loiter Speed 15–35 kt 

Sensor 

Front and side look 

integrated cameras 

EO or IR payload camera 

Sensor Make 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 82 

A.1.32 XM 157 Class IV UAS 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman 

Corporation 

Inventory: 32 per Brigade Combat Team 

Status: POR 

Background: 

The XM 157 Class IV UAS has a range and 

endurance appropriate for the brigade mission. 

It supports the BCT Commander with RSTA, 

Wide Area Surveillance (WAS), Wide-Band 

Communications Relay, and Target 

Designation. FCS unique missions include dedicated Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM) with manned aviation; 

Emitter Mapping; Mine Detection; and, standoff Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) detection. 

The FCS Class IV is being developed under a joint acquisition strategy with the Navy's VTUAV. Both programs 

utilize a common airframe and several common components procured on a Navy contract. The Class IV operates 

using FCS Battle Command and SoSCOE software. Communication payloads include JTRS SFF-J (SRW) radios for 

command and control, WIN-T JC4ISR (HNW) radio for payload data, and JTRS AMF (HNW & WNW) radio for 

communications relay. Key program dates: CDR 3QFY11, First Flight 2QFY11, Limited User Test 1QFY13 and 

IOC 3QFY15. 

Maximum/Loiter Speeds: 115/55 kts 

Takeoff Means: VTOL 

Landing Means: VTOL 

(SAR/GMTI) Sensor Make: AN/ZPY-1 

Characteristics:

XM 157 

Length 22.9 ft Wing Span 27.5 ft 

Gross Weight 3150 lb Payload Capacity 600 lb 

Fuel Capacity 190 gal Fuel Type JP-5/JP-8 

Engine Make Rolls Royce 250-C20W Power 320 shp continuous 

Network C2 (SRW) UHF Army Data Link(s) Network Video(HNW) Frequency Ka/Ku band 

Performance:

Endurance 5 – 8 hrs Maximum/Loiter Speeds 115/55 kts 

Ceiling ~20,000 ft Radius >75 km 

Takeoff Means VTOL Landing Means VTOL 

EO/IR/LD/LRF/CM Sensor Make ASTAMIDS 

SAR/GMTI Sensor Make AN/ZPY-1 

Communication Relay Radio Make JTRS AMF 

CBRN Detection Package Sensor Make TBD 

Tactical SIGINT Sensor Make TBD 

Sensors 

Survivability Senor Suite Sensor Make TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 83 

A.1.33 XPV-1 Tern 

User Service: Special Operations Command (SOCOM) 

Manufacturer: BAI Aerosystems 

Inventory: 15 Delivered/15 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Originally, an Army testbed for a fiber optic guided unmanned aircraft, the Tern was completely 

retooled in late 2001 to give it a larger, steerable nose gear and main gear fitted with tires suitable for rough terrain 

with electronically actuated disc brakes to aid short-field recovery that enabled the aircraft to carry a belly-mounted 

dispensing mechanism. The Tern was operated in support of SOF by Navy personnel from Fleet Composite 

Squadron Six (VC-6, previously the Navy’s Pioneer Unmanned Aircraft Squadron) in Afghanistan to perform force 

protection missions and to dispense an unattended ground sensor weighing over 20 pounds. Over 225 combat hours 

were flown during two 3-month long deployments. In early 2004, a Tern variant was developed that eliminated the 

landing gear and incorporated skids and a tail-hook. A marinized control station was developed, and the system was 

successfully demonstrated onboard the U.S.S. Denver. The reduced drag of the skid/tailhook recovery system 

improved the vehicle’s mission endurance from 4 to over 6 hours. 

Characteristics:

XPV-1 

Length 9.0 ft Wing Span 11.4 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 25 lb 

Fuel Capacity 28 lb Fuel Type MOGAS/oil 

Engine Make 3W 100 cc Power 12 hp 

LOS C2 L/S-band Data Link(s) LOS video Frequency UHF 

Performance:

Endurance 2 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 87/50 kt 

Ceiling 10,000 ft Radius 40 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO or IR Sensor Make BAI PTZ 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 84 

A.1.34 XPV-2 Mako 

User Service: SOCOM 

Manufacturer: NAVMAR Applied Sciences Corporation and BAI Aerosystems 

Inventory: 14 Delivered/14 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Mako is a lightweight, long-endurance, versatile unmanned aircraft capable of a variety of 

missions, yet of sufficiently low cost to be discarded after actual battle, if necessary. It is a single-engine, high-wing, 

radio-controlled or computer-assisted autopilot unmanned aircraft capable of daylight or IR reconnaissance and 

other related missions. Although it is a relatively new aircraft, the recent modifications, which included the addition 

of navigation/strobe lights, a Mode C transponder, dual GCS operational capability, and a new high-resolution 

digital camera, made it a success during support to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Characteristics:

XPV-2 

Length 9.11 ft Wing Span 12.8 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 30 lb 

Fuel Capacity 5 gal Fuel Type MOGAS/oil 

Engine Make 3W 100cc Power 9.5 hp 

Data Link(s) C2 Frequency VHF/UHF 

Video L-band video downlink 

Performance:

Endurance 8.5 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 75/50 kt 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Radius 40 NM 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make BAI 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 85 

A.2 Unmanned Airship Systems 

A number of lighter than air (LTA) and hybrid lift unmanned airship projects, both free-flying and tethered 

(aerostats), have been initiated to complement other unmanned aircraft with synergistic capabilities, most notably, 

extended persistence, robust payloads, reduced forward logistical manpower footprints, and significant fuel savings. 

Such airships are capable of endurances ranging from 5 days (RAID) to a month (JLENS) and support multiple 

missions including wide area surveillance for offensive and defensive roles, such as force protection and cruise 

missile detection. A new generation of hybrid unmanned airships would augment the heavy airlift missions of 

tomorrow. A number of aerostats are now employed in force protection in Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychological 

operations (TARS), border monitoring (TARS), and wide-area persistent surveillance and airborne communications 

nodes (PERSIUS) are other missions in which airships can complement existing LDHD ISR aircraft. Airships and 

UAS are synergistic in enhancing mission applications including force protection, signals intelligence collection, 

communications relay, and navigation enhancement. The most significant advantages of airships appears to be low 

acquisition costs, reduced operational costs, persistence, robust payloads and variety of potential missions. 

A.2.1 Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory (AAFL) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: American Blimp Corporation 

Inventory: 0 Delivered/1 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The AAFL will serve as a prototype testbed for improving 

the state of the art of airship systems technologies, ISR sensors, related 

processors, and communications networks. The initial airship systems to 

be developed and tested will be bow thrusters for slow speed control 

authority to reduce ground crew requirements; HFEs to increase 

efficiency, safety, and military operations interoperability; and automated 

flight controls to increase payload, altitude, and reduce flight operations 

costs. The AAFL will be equipped with dedicated hard points, equipment 

racks, high-bandwidth network interfaces, and 5 kilowatts of power for 

rapid integration to test a great variety of network-centric warfare payload 

options from a persistent ISR platform. 

Characteristics:

AAFL 

Length 200 ft Tail Span 55 ft 

Volume 275,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 1000 lb 

Performance:

Endurance 48 hr Altitude 20,000 ft 

Sensor Various Sensor Make TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 86 

A.2.2 Hybrid Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (HUAV) Persistent Elevated 

Reconnaissance Surveillance Intelligence Unmanned System (PERSIUS) 

User Service: JOINT 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Advanced 

Development Programs (ADP) 

Inventory: 0 Delivered / 1 Planned (JCTD)/ 1 IRAD Proof-ofConcept Demo Vehicle 

Status: Under construction. First delivery in December 2009. 

Program Background: Background: PERSIUS, Persistent 

Elevated Reconnaissance Surveillance Intelligence Unmanned 

System, is a first generation HUAV, a revolutionary hybrid 

buoyant lift aircraft providing near term, affordable, persistent ISR options in an ever-changing GWOT world. 

PERSIUS employs a versatile, non-proprietary, ‘payload gondola,’ populated with mission specific payloads, 

integrated and tested independent of the aircraft and easily maintained and reconfigured. PERSIUS will operate for 

2-3 weeks at 20,000 ft with a 2,500 payload without recovering, thus reducing launches and recoveries, maintenance 

and forward deployed manpower. Hybrid lift augments traditional lift requiring less thrust and achieving much 

greater fuel efficiency. PERSIUS is a 2009 JCTD initiative to advance affordable, near-term, persistent ISR and 

communications solutions for multiple COCOM requirements 

Characteristics:

HUAV/PERSIUS 

Length 250 ft Tail Span ~110 ft 

Volume 975,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 2,500 lb at 20,000 ft 

Performance:

Endurance 21 Days Altitude 20,000 ft 

Sensor Various Sensor Make TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 87 

A.2.3 Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) 

User Service: Joint (Army Lead) 

Manufacturer: Raytheon/TCOM 

Inventory: 12 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: JLENS is primarily intended to tackle the growing threat of cruise 

missiles to U.S. forces deployed abroad with radars to provide OTH 

surveillance. A JLENS system consists of two aerostats, one containing a 

surveillance radar (SuR) and one containing a precision track illumination radar 

(PTIR). Each aerostat is tethered to a mobile mooring station and attached to a 

processing station via a fiber optic/power tether. The SuR provides the initial 

target detection and then cueing to the PTIR, which generates a fire control 

quality track. The JLENS system is integrated into the joint tactical architecture 

via Link 16, cooperative engagement capability, single-channel ground and air 

radio system, and enhanced position location reporting system. Both radar 

systems will include identification, friend or foe interrogators. 

Characteristics:

JLENS 

Length 233 ft Tail Span 75 ft 

Volume 590,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 5000 lb 

Performance:

Endurance 30 days Altitude 10,000–15,000 ft 

Sensor Radar Sensor Make Jasper 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 88 

A.2.4 Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Raytheon and TCOM 

Inventory: 3 Delivered/3 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Army initiated RAID to support Operation Enduring 

Freedom. Based on the JLENS missile detection and early warning platform, 

RAID is a smaller, tethered aerostat. Operating at an altitude of 1000 feet with 

a coverage footprint extending for several miles, RAID is performing area 

surveillance and force protection against small arms, mortar, and rocket 

attacks in Afghanistan. Although considerably smaller than the JLENS 

platform, the RAID experience in Afghanistan represents a valuable learning 

opportunity that should be useful to future tactical users of the JLENS. 

Characteristics:

RAID 

Length 49 ft Tail Span 21 ft 

Volume 10,200 ft3 Payload Capacity 200 lb 

Performance:

Endurance 5 days Altitude 900+ ft 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make FSI Safire III 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 89 

A.2.5 Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform (REAP) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin and ISL-Bosch Aerospace 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/2 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: REAP was jointly developed by the ONR and the Army’s Material 

Command for use in Iraq. This 31-feet long aerostat is much smaller than the TARS 

and operates at only 300 feet above the battlefield. It is designed for rapid deployment 

(approximately 5 minutes) from the back of a high-mobility multipurpose wheeled 

vehicle and carries daylight and night-vision cameras. Its sensors can sense out to 18 

nautical miles from 300 feet. REAP deployed to Iraq in December 2003. 

Characteristics:

REAP 

Length 31 ft Tail Span 17 ft 

Volume 2600 ft3 Payload Capacity 35 lb 

Performance:

Endurance 10 days Altitude 300 ft 

EO ISL Mark 1 Sensor 

IR 

Sensor Make 

Raytheon IR 250 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 90 

A.2.6 Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: ILC Dover 

Inventory: 10 Delivered/10 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The primary mission of TARS is to provide lowlevel radar surveillance data in support of 

Federal agencies involved in the nation’s drug interdiction 

program. Its secondary mission is to provide North American 

Aerospace Defense Command with low-level surveillance 

coverage for air sovereignty in the Florida Straights. One 

aerostat, located at Cudjoe Key, Florida, transmits TV Marti, 

which sends American television signals to Cuba for the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. All radar data are transmitted 

to a ground station and then digitized and fed to the various users. Airborne time is generally limited by the weather 

to 60 percent operational availability; notwithstanding weather, aerostat and equipment availability averages more 

than 98 percent system wide. For security and safety reasons, the airspace around Air Force aerostat sites is 

restricted for a radius of at least two to three statute miles and an altitude up to 15,000 feet. 

http://www2.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/tars.html 

Characteristics:

TARS 

Length 208 ft Tail Span 100 ft 

Volume 275,000/420,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 1200 lb 

Performance:

Endurance 10/30 days Altitude 12,000–15,000 ft 

Sensor Radar Sensor Make AN/TPS-63 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 91 

A.3 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Airspace Integration 

A.3.1 Overview 

The OSD vision is to have “File and Fly” access for appropriately equipped UAS by the end of 

2012 while maintaining an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) to aircraft with a pilot onboard. For 

military operations, UAS will operate with manned aircraft in civil airspace, including in and 

around airfields, using concepts of operation that make on- or off-board distinctions transparent 

to ATC authorities and airspace regulators. The operations tempo at mixed airfields will not be 

diminished by the integration of unmanned aviation. 

Historically, UAS were predominately operated by DoD in support of combat operations in 

military controlled airspace; however, UAS support to civil authorities (JTF Katrina in 2005, 

U.S. Border surveillance, and fire suppression) continues to expand. This expansion, coupled 

with the requirement to train and operate DoD and OGA assets, highlights the need for routine 

access to the NAS outside of restricted and warning areas, over land and water. Additionally, 

operating UAS in other host nation airspace systems emphasizes the need to resolve airspace 

integration concerns as soon as practical. 

A.3.2 Background 

Because the current UAS do not have the same capabilities as manned aircraft to safely and 

efficiently integrate into the NAS, military UAS requirements to operate outside of restricted and 

warning areas are accommodated on a case-by-case basis. A process used to gain NAS access 

was jointly developed and agreed to by the DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 

1999. Military operators of UAS are required to obtain a COA from the FAA. The process can 

take up to 60 days and, because UAS do not have a see and avoid (S&A) capability, may require 

such additional and costly measures as providing chase planes and/or primary radar coverage. 

COAs are typically issued for a specific UAS, limited to specific routes or areas, and are valid 

for no more than one year. Exceptions are the National COA that was issued to the Air Force for 

Global Hawk operations in the NAS and the Disaster Relief COA that was issued to 

NORTHCOM’s Joint Force Air Component Commander for the Predator and Global Hawk UAS 

along the southern and northern borders. 

With a COA, the UAS is accommodated into the system when mission needs dictate; however, 

because the UAS lacks the ability to meet the same regulator requirements as a manned aircraft, 

it is frequently segregated from manned aviation rather than integrated with it, an exception 

being the integration of UAS flying on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans. As the DoD 

CONOPS for UAS matures and as we ensure the airworthiness of our UAS, we will look toward 

developing new procedures to gain access to the NAS. Toward that end, the DoD is working 

with the FAA to refine and/or replace the COA process to enable more ready access to the NAS 

for qualified UAS. 

From the DoD perspective, three critical issues must be addressed in order to supplant the COA 

process: UAS reliability, FAA regulations, and an S&A capability. Each is discussed here. 

OSD and FAA, working through the DoD Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA), are 

engaged in establishing the air traffic regulatory infrastructure for integrating military UAS into 

the NAS. By limiting this effort’s focus to traffic management of domestic flight operations by 

military UAS, the hope is to establish a solid precedent that can be extended to other public and 

civil UAS domestically and to civil and military flights in international and non-U.S. airspace. 

As depicted in Figure A.1, this initiative (shown by the lower-left block in the figure) is intended 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 92 

to serve as the first brick in the larger, interwoven wall of regulations governing worldwide 

aviation. Precepts include the following: 

Do no harm. Avoid new initiatives, e.g., enacting regulations for the military user that would 

adversely impact the Military Departments’ right to self-certify aircraft and aircrews, ATC 

practices or procedures, or manned aviation CONOPS or TTPs or that would unnecessarily 

restrict civilian or commercial flights. Where feasible, leave “hooks” in place to facilitate the 

adaptation of these regulations for civil use. This also applies to recognizing that “one size does 

NOT fit all” when it comes to establishing regulations for the wide range in size and 

performance of DoD UAS. 

Conform rather than create. Apply the existing Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

(formerly known as Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs) to also cover unmanned aviation 

and avoid the creation of dedicated UAS regulations as much as possible. The goal is to achieve 

transparent flight operations in the NAS. 

Establish the precedent. Although focused on domestic use, any regulations enacted will likely 

lead, or certainly have to conform to, similar regulations governing UAS flight in International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and foreign domestic (specific countries’) airspace. 

Figure A.1. Joint FAA/OSD Approach to Regulating UAS 

Before the vision of “file and fly” can occur, significant work must be accomplished in the 

mutually dependent areas of UAS reliability, regulation, and an S&A capability. 

A.3.2.1 Reliability 

UAS reliability is the first hurdle in airspace considerations because it underlies UAS acceptance 

into civil airspace—whether domestic, international, or foreign. Historically, UAS have suffered 

mishaps at one to two orders of magnitude greater than the rate (per 100,000 hours) incurred by 

manned military aircraft. In recent years, however, flight experience and improved technologies 

have enabled UAS to continue to track the reliability of early manned military aircraft with their 

reliability approaching an equivalent level of reliability to their manned military counterparts 

(see Figure A.2). Further improvements in reliability will be seen as airworthiness teams develop 

rigorous standards, and greater redundancy is designed into the systems, e.g., the MQ-1C ER/MP 

and MQ-9A Reaper flight management systems. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 93 

Reaper

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Cumulative Flight Hours

Class A or B Mishaps per 100,000 Hours

Pioneer

U-2

Global 

Hawk

Hunter

Predator

F-16

Shadow

I-Gnat

Figure A.2. U.S. Military Aircraft and UAS Class A Mishap Rates (Lifetime), 1986–2006 

A.3.2.2 Regulation 

A.3.2.2.1 Air Traffic Operations 

The FAA’s air traffic regulations are meant to ensure the multitude of aircraft flown in the NAS 

are operated safely and pose a minimal hazard to people or property on the ground or in the air. 

FAA’s air traffic management focus is on the day-to-day operation of the system and the safe, 

expeditious movement of air traffic. Aircraft are separated by time, altitude, and lateral distance. 

Additionally, classes of airspace are established that include specific requirements for aircraft 

equipage, pilot qualifications, and flight plan filing. Regardless of the class of airspace in which 

aircraft are operating, pilots are required to S&A other air traffic. This requirement exists even 

when ground controllers provide traffic advisories or when an onboard collision avoidance 

system, such as the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), is required. S&A is a 

key issue in allowing UAS into civil airspace and is discussed in detail in A.3.2.3. 

Six classes of airspace are defined in the United States, each requiring varying levels of user 

performance (aircrew/aircraft). Aircraft are controlled to varying degrees by the ATC 

infrastructure in the different classes of airspace. Because these classes are referenced throughout 

this discussion, a brief description is useful. 

 Class A airspace exists from Flight Level (FL) 180 (18,000 feet MSL) to FL600 (60,000 feet 

MSL). Flights within Class A airspace must be under IFR and under the control of ATC at all 

times. 

 Class B airspace generally surrounds major airports (generally up to 10,000 feet MSL) to 

reduce mid-air collision potential by requiring ATC control of IFR and Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) flights in that airspace. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 94 

 Class C airspace surrounds busy airports (generally up to 4000 feet AGL) that do not need 

Class B airspace protection and requires flights to establish and maintain two-way 

communications with ATC while in that airspace. ATC provides radar separation service to 

flights in Class C airspace. 

 Class D airspace surrounds airports (generally up to 2500 feet AGL) that have an operating 

control tower. Flights in Class D airspace must establish and maintain communications with 

ATC, but VFR flights do not receive separation service. 

 Class E airspace is all other airspace in which IFR and VFR flights are allowed. Although 

Class E airspace can extend to the surface, it generally begins at 1200 feet AGL, or 

14,500 feet MSL, and extends upward until it meets a higher class of airspace (A–D). It is 

also above FL600. 

 Class G airspace (there is no Class F airspace in the United States) is also called 

“uncontrolled airspace” because ATC does not control aircraft there. (ATC will provide 

advisories upon request, workload dependent.) Class G airspace can extend to 14,499 feet 

MSL, but generally exists below 1200 feet AGL and below Class E airspace. 

Accordingly, Classes B, C, and D relate to airspace surrounding airports (terminal airspace) 

where increased mid-air collision potential exists; Classes A, E, and G primarily relate to altitude 

and the nature of flight operations that commonly occur at those altitudes (en route airspace). 

ATC provides separation services and/or advisories to all flights in Classes A, B, and C. They 

provide it to some flights in Class E, and do not provide service in Class G. Regardless of the 

class of airspace, or whether ATC provides separation services, pilots are required to S&A other 

aircraft during visual flight conditions. Figure A.3 depicts this airspace with representative UAS 

and their anticipated operating altitude. 

Class G SFC - 700 ’

Class A

Class E

Class D

- 2,5000 ’ MSL

Class B

SFC - 10,000 ’ MSL

Class C

SFC - 4,000 ’ MSL

Class E

60,000 ft MSL

18,000 ft MSL

Class E

Global Hawk

Reaper

Hunter

Shadow

I-GNAT Predator

Fire Scout 

Class C

SFC - 4,000’ AGL

ER/MP Federal Airways 

(Class E) 

1,200’ AGL– 17,999’ MSL

Jet Routes 

(Class A) 

FL180 – FL 450

45,000 ft MSL

Class G

SFC – 14,500’ MSL

Class E

Class D

SFC - 2,500’ AGL

Class B

SFC - 10,000’ MSL

Class A BAMS

Class G Airspace SFC – 700’ or 1,200’ AGL
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 95 

Figure A.3. UAS and Airspace Classes of the NAS 3 

It is clear that some taxonomy for UAS is needed to define their operating privileges, 

airworthiness standards, operator training and certification requirements, and place in the rightof-way rules. Although public (e.g., U.S. military) aircraft are, to some degree, exempt from a 

number of FAA regulations such as airworthiness and pilot certification, certain responsibilities 

still exist: 

 Meeting equivalent airworthiness and operator qualification standards to operate in the NAS, 

 Conforming to FAA traffic regulations (S&A, lighting, yielding right-of-way) when 

operating outside of restricted airspace, and 

 Complying with international (oceanic and foreign domestic) regulations when transiting that 

airspace, regulations which often take those of the FAA as precedents. 

Military UAS with a need to routinely operate outside of restricted airspace or in international 

airspace must, therefore, make themselves transparent to air traffic management authorities. In 

large part, this means conforming by waiver to 14 CFR 91 for the larger UAS, such as the Air 

Force’s Global Hawk and Predator. This plan calls for these UAS (Cat III) to be treated similarly 

to manned aircraft. 

The FAA has approved a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category in the regulations and does not 

require either airworthiness or pilot certification (similar to Part 103 aircraft) for certain uses and 

limited operations. These aircraft achieve an equivalent level of safety to certificated aircraft 

with a slightly lower level of reliability. There are also many restricted category aircraft that 

perform special purpose operations. A number of U.S. military UAS (e.g., Army’s RQ-7 Shadow 

and MQ-5 Hunter) share similar characteristics and performance. This plan calls for these UAS 

(Cat II) to be treated similarly to ultralights, LSA, or restricted category aircraft. 

As a final case with application to UAS, the FAA has chosen not to explicitly regulate certain 

other aircraft, such as model rockets, fireworks, and radio-controlled (RC) model aircraft. 14 

CFR 101 specifically exempts smaller balloons, rockets, and kites from the regulation; and AC 

91-57 addresses RC model airplanes, but is advisory only. These systems are omitted from the 

regulations. All three military departments currently employ UAS in the same size, weight, and 

performance regimes as those of RC models (e.g., Raven for the Army, Air Force, and Marine 

Corps). This plan calls for small UAS similar to RC model aircraft (and operated similarly) 

(UAS (Cat I)) to be treated similarly to RC model aircraft. This discussion provides divisions, 

based on the existing regulatory FAA infrastructure, into which all current military UAS can be 

placed and is depicted with example UAS types in Table A.1. 

Certified Aircraft / 

UAS (Cat III ) 

Nonstandard Aircraft / 

UAS (Cat II) 

RC Model Aircraft / UAS 

(Cat I) 

FAA Regulation 14 CFR 91 14 CFR 91, 101, and 103 None (AC 91-57) 

Airspace Usage All Class E, G, & 

non-joint-use Class D 

Class G 

(<1200 ft AGL) 

Airspeed Limit, KIAS None NTE 250 (proposed) 100 (proposed) 

Example Types Manned Airliners Light-Sport None 

Unmanned Predator, Global Hawk Shadow Dragon Eye, Raven 

Table A.1. Alignment of UAS Categories with FAA Regulations 

 

3

 The FAA is moving toward a two-class structure for the NAS, “terminal” and “en route.” Terminal will subsume 

Class B, C, and D airspace, and en route will include Class A, E, and G airspace. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 96 

The terms within Table A.1 are further defined below. 

 UAS (Cat III). Capable of flying throughout all categories of airspace and conforms to Part 

91 (i.e., all the things a regulated manned aircraft must do including the ability to S&A). 

Airworthiness certification and operator qualification are required. UAS are generally built 

for beyond LOS operations. Examples: Global Hawk, Predator 

 UAS (Cat II). Nonstandard aircraft that perform special purpose operations. Operators must 

provide evidence of airworthiness and operator qualification. Cat II UAS may perform 

routine operations within a specific set of restrictions. Example: Shadow 

 UAS (Cat I). Analogous to RC models as covered in AC 91-57. Operators must provide 

evidence of airworthiness and operator qualification. Small UAS are generally limited to 

visual LOS operations. Examples: Raven, Dragon Eye 

The JUAS COE has since further divided these three categories into five UAS categories, as 

approved 25 November 2008 by the VCJCS supporting all Services’ agreement on DoD UAS 

categorization, depicted in Figure A.4. 

UAS Category Maximum Gross 

Takeoff Weight (lbs)

Normal Operating 

Altitude (ft) Speed (KIAS) Current/Future Representative UAS

Group 1 0-20 < 1,200 AGL 100 kts 

WASP III, Future 

Combat System Class 

I, TACMAV RQ14A/B, BUSTER, 

BATCAM, RQ11B/C, FPASS, RQ16A, Pointer, 

Aqua/Terra Puma 

Group 2 21-55 < 3,500 AGL 

Vehicle Craft 

Unmanned Aircraft 

System, ScanEagle, 

Silver Fox, 

Aerosonde 

Group 3 < 1,320 < 18,000 MSL 

< 250 kts 

RQ-7B, RQ-15, 

STUAS, XPV-1, 

XPV-2 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 97 

Group 4 MQ-5B, MQ-8B, 

MQ-1A/B/C, A-160 

Group 5 

> 1,320 

> 18,000 MSL 

Any Airspeed 

MQ-9A, RQ-4, RQ4N, Global Observer, 

N-UCAS 

Note: Lighter than air vehicles will be categorized by the highest level of any of their operating criteria. 

(1) Group 1 UA: Typically weighs less than 20 pounds and normally operates below 1200 feet AGL at speeds less 

than 250 knots. 

(2) Group 2 UA: Typically weighs 21-55 pounds and normally operates below 3500 feet AGL at speeds less than 

250 knots. 

(3) Group 3 UA: Typically weighs more than 55 pounds but less than 1320 pounds and normally operates below 

18,000 feet MSL at speeds less than 250 knots. 

(4) Group 4 UA: Typically weighs more than 1320 pounds and normally operates below 18,000 feet MSL at any 

speed. 

(5) Group 5 UA: Typically weighs more than 1320 pounds and normally operates higher than 18,000 feet MSL at 

any speed. 

Figure A.4. JUAS CONOPS UAS Categories 

It is important to note that the FAA uses the term “category” in two different ways (14 CFR 1). 

As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, the term 

“category” means a broad classification of aircraft. Examples include airplane, rotorcraft, glider, 

and lighter-than-air. As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, the term “category” 

means a grouping of aircraft based upon intended use or operating limitations. Examples include 

transport, normal, utility, acrobatic, limited, restricted, and provisional. When discussing rightof-way rules in 14 CFR 91.113, however, the FAA uses non-mutually exclusive categories such 

as balloon, glider, airship, airplane, rotorcraft, and engine-driven aircraft for determining which 

flight has the right of way. 14 CFR 103 requires ultralights to yield to the right of way to all 

other manned aircraft. Similarly, the FAA provides avoidance (right-of-way) advice for RC 

model aircraft in an Advisory Circular. 

It is envisioned, then, that UAS could be assigned their own category in order to facilitate the 

development of regulations for air operations, airworthiness, operator certification, and right-ofway rules. The UAS category may be exclusive of certain UAS in the same way that model 

airplanes are omitted from current regulations; and some UAS may be regulated separately, as 

ultralights, light-sport, or restricted category aircraft are currently. 

In addition to regulatory changes necessary for routine operation of military UAS in civil 

airspace, changes to several other documents, such as Advisory Circulars and FAA Joint Order 

7610.4M (Special Operations), will be required. 

A.3.2.2.2 Airworthiness Certification 

The FAA’s airworthiness regulations are meant to ensure that aircraft are built and maintained to 

minimize their hazard to aircrew, passengers, and people and property on the ground. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 98 

Airworthiness is concerned with the material and construction integrity of the individual aircraft 

and the prevention of the aircraft’s coming apart in mid-air and/or causing damage to persons or 

property on the ground. Over the 19-year period from 1982 to 2000, an annual average of 2.2 

percent of all aviation fatalities involved people being hit by parts falling off aircraft. A UAS that 

must be available for unrestricted operations worldwide (e.g., Global Hawk) in most classes of 

airspace compels serious consideration for the safety of people on the ground. The operational 

requirements for UAS operation in civil airspace means flight over populated areas must not 

raise concerns based on overall levels of airworthiness; therefore, UAS standards cannot vary 

widely from those for manned aircraft without raising public and regulatory concern. 

FAA regulations do not require “public aircraft” (Government-owned or -operated) to be 

certified airworthy to FAA standards. Most nonmilitary public aircraft are versions of aircraft 

previously certified for commercial or private use; however, the only public aircraft not related 

to FAA certification standards in some way are almost always military aircraft. These aircraft are 

certified through the military’s internal airworthiness certification/flight release process. A Tri 

Service memorandum of agreement describes the responsibilities and actions associated with 

mutual acceptance of airworthiness certifications for manned aircraft and UAS within the same 

certified design configuration, envelope, parameters, and usage limits certified by the originating 

Military Department. 

Similarly to manned military aircraft, unmanned military aircraft will also be subject to the 

airworthiness certification/flight release process. The Global Hawk has completed this process 

and has been granted an airworthiness certificate. 

A.3.2.2.3 Crew Qualifications 

The FAA’s qualification standards (14 CFR 61, 63, 65, and 67) are meant to ensure the 

competency of aircrew and aircraft maintainers. As in the case of airworthiness certification, 

these CFR parts do not pertain to military personnel who are certified in a similar, parallel 

process. DoD and FAA have signed a memorandum of agreement through which DoD agrees to 

meet or exceed civil training standards, and the FAA agrees to accept military-rated pilots into 

the NAS. These factors indicate that a certain minimum knowledge standard is required of all 

pilots-in-command in order to operate aircraft in the NAS. In order to meet the intent of “do no 

harm,” training for Cat III aircraft would include, but not be limited to, regulations, airspace 

clearances and restrictions, aircraft flight rules, air traffic communications, aircraft sequencing 

and prioritization, takeoff and landing procedures for combined manned and unmanned 

operations, go-around and abort procedures, flight planning and filing (including in-flight filing), 

flight and communications procedures for lost link, weather reporting and avoidance, ground 

operations for combined manned and unmanned operations, flight speed and altitude restrictions, 

and, when applicable, weapons carriage procedures (including hung ordinance flight 

restrictions). 

Under the international doctrine for public aircraft, the FAA does not have to agree with DoD 

training or accept military ratings; the Military Departments are entitled to make these judgments 

independently. Each Military Department identifies what and how it will operate and create the 

training programs necessary to safely accomplish its missions. Some of the UAS-related training 

is a fundamental shift away from the skills needed to fly a manned aircraft (e.g., ground-based 

visual landing). These differences can relate to the means of landing: visual remote, aided visual, 

or fully autonomous. They may also relate to different interface designs for the UAS functions or 

the level of control needed to exercise authority over an aircraft based on its autonomous 

capability. As a result, the Military Departments will have minimum standards for knowledge 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 99 

skills required of UAS operators operating in the NAS; this minimum standard may differ for 

given classes of UAS. UAS operators will be expected to conform to these requirements. 

A.3.2.3 “See and Avoid” (S&A) Principle 

A key requirement for routine access to the NAS is UAS compliance with 14 CFR 91.113, 

“Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations.” This section contains the phrase “sense and 

avoid” and is the primary restriction to normal operations of UAS. The intent of “sense and 

avoid” is for pilots to use their sensors (eyes) and other tools to find and maintain situational 

awareness of other traffic and to yield the right-of-way, in accordance with the rules, when there 

is a traffic conflict. Since the purpose of this regulation is to avoid mid-air collisions, this should 

be the focus of technological efforts to address the issue as it relates to UAS rather than trying to 

mimic and/or duplicate human vision. In June 2003, USAF’s Air Combat Command (ACC) 

sponsored a joint working group to establish and quantify an S&A system capability for 

submission to the FAA. Their white paper, “See and Avoid Requirement for Remotely Operated 

Aircraft,” was released in June 2004. 

Relying simply on human vision results in mid-air collisions accounting for an average of 0.8 

percent of all mishaps and 2.4 percent of all aviation fatalities incurring annually (based on the 3-

year average from 1998 to 2000). Meaningful S&A performance must alert the UAS operator to 

local air traffic at ranges sufficient for reaction time and avoidance actions by safe margins. 

Furthermore, UAS operations BLOS may require an automated S&A system due to potential 

communications latencies or failures. 

The FAA does not provide a quantitative definition of S&A, largely due to the number of 

combinations of pilot vision, collision vectors, sky background, and aircraft paint schemes 

involved in seeing oncoming traffic. Having a sufficient field of regard for a UAS S&A system, 

however, is fundamental to meeting the goal of assured air traffic separation. 

Although an elusive issue, one fact is apparent. The challenge with the S&A issue is both a 

capability constraint and a regulatory one. Given the discussions in this and other analyses, a 

possible definition for S&A systems emerges: S&A is the onboard, self-contained ability to 

 Detect traffic that may be a conflict, 

 Evaluate flight paths, 

 Determine traffic right of way, and 

 Maneuver well clear according to the rules in Part 91.113. 

The key to providing the “equivalent level of safety” required by FAA Order 7610.4M, “Special 

Operations,” Chapter 12, Section 9, “UAS Operations in the NAS,” is the provision of some 

comparable means of S&A to that provided by pilots on board manned aircraft. The purpose of 

S&A is to avoid mid-air collisions, and this should be the focus of technological efforts to 

automate this capability, rather than trying to mechanize human vision. 

From a technical perspective, the S&A capability can be divided into the detection of oncoming 

traffic and the execution of a maneuver to avoid a mid-air collision. The detection aspect can be 

further subdivided into passive or active techniques applicable in cooperative or non-cooperative 

traffic environments. 

The active cooperative scenario involves an interrogator monitoring a sector ahead of the UAS to 

detect oncoming traffic by interrogating the transponder on the other aircraft. Its advantages are 

that it provides both range and bearing to the traffic and can function in both visual and 

instrument meteorological conditions (i.e., Visual Meteorological Conditions [VMC] and 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 100 

Instrument Meteorological Conditions [IMC]). Its disadvantages are its relative cost. Current 

systems available in this category include the various TCASs. 

The active non-cooperative scenario relies on a radar- or laser-like sensor scanning a sector 

ahead of the UAS to detect all traffic, whether transponder-equipped or not. The returned signal 

provides range, bearing, and closure rate and allows prioritization of oncoming traffic for 

avoidance, in either VMC or IMC. Its potential drawbacks are its relative cost, the bandwidth 

requirement to route its imagery (for non-autonomous systems), and its weight. An example of 

an active, non-cooperative system that is currently available is a combined microwave radar and 

infrared sensor originally developed to enable helicopters to avoid power lines. 

The passive cooperative scenario, like the active cooperative one, relies on everyone having a 

transponder, but with everyone’s transponder broadcasting position, altitude, and velocity data. 

Its advantages are its lower relative cost (no onboard interrogator required to activate 

transponders) and its ability to provide S&A information in both VMC and IMC. Its 

disadvantage is its dependence on all traffic carrying and continuously operating transponders. In 

this scenario, UAS should have the capability to change transponder settings while in flight. 

The passive non-cooperative scenario is the most demanding one. It is also the most analogous to 

the human eye. An S&A system in this scenario relies on a sensor to detect and provide azimuth 

and elevation to the oncoming traffic. Its advantages are its moderate relative cost and ability to 

detect non-transponder-equipped traffic. Its disadvantages are its lack of direct range or closure 

rate information, potentially high bandwidth requirement (if not autonomous), and its probable 

inability to penetrate weather. The gimbaled EO/IR sensors currently carried by reconnaissance 

UAS are examples of such systems; however, if they are looking at the ground for 

reconnaissance, then they are not available to perform S&A. An emerging approach that would 

negate the high bandwidth requirement of any active system is optical flow technology, which 

reports only when it detects an object showing a lack of movement against the sky, instead of 

sending a continuous video stream to the ground controller. Imagery from one or more 

inexpensive optical sensors on the UAS is continuously compared to the last image by an 

onboard processor to detect minute changes in pixels, indicating traffic of potential interest. Only 

when such objects are detected is their bearing relayed to the ground. 

Once the “detect and sense” portion of S&A is satisfied, the UAS must use this information to 

execute an avoidance maneuver. The latency between seeing and avoiding for the pilot of a 

manned aircraft ranges from 10 to 12.5 seconds according to FAA and DoD studies. If relying on 

a ground operator to S&A, the UAS incurs the same human latency, but adds the latency of the 

data link bringing the image to the ground for a decision and the avoidance command back to the 

UAS. This added latency can range from less than a second for LOS links to more time for 

satellite links. 

An alternative is to empower the UAS to autonomously decide whether and which way to react 

to avoid a collision once it detects oncoming traffic, thereby removing the latency imposed by 

data links. This approach has been considered for implementation on TCAS II-equipped manned 

aircraft since TCAS II already recommends a vertical direction to the pilot, but simulations have 

found the automated maneuver worsens the situation in a fraction of the scenarios. For this 

reason, the FAA has not certified automated collision avoidance algorithms based on TCAS 

resolution advisories; doing so would set a significant precedent for UAS S&A capabilities. 

The long-term FAA plan is “to move away from infrastructure-based systems towards a more 

autonomous, aircraft-based system” for collision avoidance. Installation of TCAS is increasing 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 101 

across the aviation community, and TCAS functionality supports increased operator autonomy. 

Research and testing of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) may afford an 

even greater capability and affirms the intent of the aviation community to support and continue 

down this path. Such equipment complements basic S&A, adds to the situational awareness, and 

helps provide separation from close traffic in all meteorological conditions. 

A.3.3 Command, Control, Communications 

A.3.3.1 Data Link Security 

In general, there are two main areas of concern when considering link security: inadvertent or 

hostile interference of the uplink and downlink. The forward (“up”) link controls the activities of 

the platform itself and the payload hardware. This command and control link requires a sufficient 

degree of security to ensure that only authorized agents have access to the control mechanisms of 

the platform. The return (“down”) link transmits critical data from the platform payload to the 

Warfighter or analyst on the ground or in the air. System health and status information must also 

be delivered to the GCS or UAS operator without compromise. Effective frequency spectrum 

allocation and management are key to reducing inadvertent interference of the data links. 

A.3.3.2 Redundant/Independent Navigation 

The air navigation environment is changing, in part, because of the demands of increased traffic 

flow. Allowances for deviation from intended flight paths are being reduced. This provides 

another means for increasing air traffic capacity as airways and standard departures and 

approaches can be constructed with less separation. As tolerances for navigational deviation 

decrease, the need to precisely maintain course grows. All aircraft must ensure they have robust 

navigational means. Historically, this robustness has been achieved by installation of redundant 

navigational systems. The need for dependable, precise navigation reinforces the redundancy 

requirements. 

While navigation accuracy and reliability pertain to military operations and traffic management, 

current systems are achieving the necessary standard without redundancy and without reliance on 

ground-based navigation aids. The Federal Radionavigation Plan, signed January 2006, 

establishes the following national policies: 

 Properly certified GPS is approved as a supplemental system for domestic en route and 

terminal navigation, and for nonprecision approach and landing operations. 

 The FAA’s phase-down plan for ground-based navigation aid systems (NAVAIDS) retains at 

least a minimum operational network of ground-based NAVAIDS for the foreseeable future. 

 Sufficient ground-based NAVAIDS will be maintained to provide the FAA and the airspace 

users with a safe recovery and sustained operations capability in the event of a disruption in 

satellite navigation service. 

These policies apply, as a minimum, to all aircraft flying in civil airspace. With GPS, the 

prospect for relief of some redundancy requirements in manned aviation may be an option in the 

future. However, UAS have a diminished prospect for relief since, unlike manned aircraft, a 

UAS without communication links cannot readily fall back on dead reckoning, contact 

navigation, and map reading in the same sense that a manned aircraft can. 

A.3.3.3 Autonomy 

Advances in computer and communications technologies have enabled the development of 

autonomous unmanned systems. With the increase in computational power available, 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 102 

developmental UAS are able to achieve much more sophisticated subsystem, guidance, 

navigation and control, sensor, and communications autonomy than previous systems. For 

example, Global Hawk’s airborne systems are designed to identify, isolate, and compensate for a 

wide range of possible system/subsystem failures and autonomously take actions to ensure 

system safety. Preprogrammed decision trees are built to address each possible failure during 

each part of the mission. 

One of the most difficult aspects of high levels of autonomy is ensuring that all elements remain 

synchronized. A key accomplishment will be to verify that: 1) all messages are received; 2) all 

aircraft have correctly interpreted the messages; and 3) the entire squadron has a single set of 

mission plans to execute. 

A.3.3.4 Lost Link 

In the event of lost C2 links, military UAS are typically programmed to climb to a predefined 

altitude to attempt to reestablish contact; this “lost link profile” may not be appropriate for 

operations in the NAS. If contact is not reestablished in a given time, the UAS can be 

preprogrammed to retrace its outbound route home, fly direct to home, or continue its mission. 

With an irreversible loss of the C2 data link, however, there is usually no procedure for a 

communications-out recovery (Global Hawk does have this capability using differential GPS and 

pre-programmed divert airfields). Examination of a lost C2 link scenario illustrates that this 

communications issue can become a critical UAS failure mode. At present, DoD UAS platforms 

have a multitude of lost link procedures based on service requirements and acquisition 

strategies. In order for DoD UAS access to gain more routine, seamless access to the NAS, the 

DoD needs to develop standard lost link procedures for systems requiring routine access to the 

NAS. This will provide the Federal Aviation Administration with predictable, consistent lost link 

procedures when working with DoD UAS. 

No Radio (NORDO) requirements are well documented in 14 CFR 91.185. Remarkably, most 

lost C2 link situations bear a striking resemblance to NORDO, and UAS would enhance their 

predictability by autonomously following the guidance. The one exception to this case is the 

VFR conditions clause. UAS, even with an autonomous S&A system, would enhance overall 

safety by continuing to fly IFR. Should normal ATC-voice communications fail, the FAA also 

has the capability to patch airspace users through to the controlling ATC authority by phone at 

any time. 

A.3.4 Future Environment 

The migration of the NAS from ground-based traffic control to airborne traffic management, 

scheduled to occur over the next decade, will have significant implications for UAS. S&A will 

become an integrated, automated part of routine position reporting and navigation functions by 

relying on a combination of ADS-B and GPS. In effect, it will create a virtual bubble of airspace 

around each aircraft so that when bubbles contact, avoidance is initiated. All aircraft will be 

required to be equipped to the same level, making the unmanned or manned status of an aircraft 

transparent to both flyers and to the FAA. 

Finally, the pejorative perception that UAS are by nature more dangerous than manned aircraft 

needs to be countered by recognizing that UAS can provide an equivalent level of safety to that 

of manned aircraft and possess the following inherent attributes that contribute to flying safety: 

 Many manned aircraft mishaps occur during the takeoff and landing phases of flight, when 

human decisions and control inputs are substantial factors. Robotic aircraft are not 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 103 

programmed to take chances; either preprogrammed conditions are met or the system goes 

around. This will likely reduce the incidence of mishaps during these phases of flight. 

 Since human support systems are not carried, mishaps from failed life support systems (e.g., 

Payne Stewart, Helios Airways 522) will not occur. 

 An automated takeoff and landing capability reduces the need for pattern work and results in 

reduced exposure to mishaps, particularly in the area surrounding main operating bases. 

 UAS control stations can access resources not available in the traditional cockpit and thus 

increase the operator’s situational awareness. 

 A greater percentage of UAS operator training can be performed through simulation given 

the nature of GCSs. Using simulations reduces the need to actually fly the aircraft and the 

related exposure to mishaps. 

A.3.5 Department of Defense (DoD) Organizations with Roles in Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) Airspace Integration 

As discussed, access to the NAS is currently attained primarily through the COA process, which 

relies on a combination of procedures and observers to provide the ELOS for UAS. Both 

regulatory and technical issues need to be addressed to attain UAS integration. The organizations 

within the DoD that are addressing these issues and are related to current and future operations 

include OSD Oversight and Policy, the Joint Staff chartered organizations, and the military 

departments’ chartered organizations. 

A.3.5.1 OUSD Oversight and Policy 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) (Acquisition Technology and Logistics 

[AT&L]) established the UAS PTF in October 2001 to address the need for an integrated 

Defense-wide initiative for UAS planning and execution. The UAS PTF provides oversight on 

all DoD UAS acquisition programs. 

DoDD 5030.19 directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information 

Integration) (ASD(NII)) to chair the DoD PBFA. The PBFA shall advise and assist the 

ASD(NII) on ATC, airspace management, NAS matters, joint systems acquisition, and aviationrelated international affairs. Supporting the PBFA are the PBFA Working Group and the UAS 

Subgroup. 

The ASD (Homeland Defense [HD]) is the Department’s interface with DHS. It has been 

directed to develop a comprehensive policy document on domestic use of UAS. 

A.3.5.2 Joint Staff Chartered Organizations 

The JROC chartered two organizations to improve UAS interoperability and operational 

effectiveness of UAS: 

 The former JUAS Material Review Board (MRB), disestablished in November 2007, to 

provide a UAS forum to identify or resolve requirements and corresponding materiel issues 

(July 5, 2005), and 

 The JUAS Center of Excellence (COE), to pursue solutions to optimize UAS capabilities and 

utilization (including concepts of operation). 

The JUAS MRB was tasked to determine if the current DoD organizations working the UAS 

airspace integration issue were adequately resourced, both in funding and personnel. The JUAS 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 104 

COE, reporting to Commander USJFCOM, published the most recent Joint UAS CONOPS in 

November 2008, which includes a description of UAS systems, UAS employment 

considerations, and UAS support to Joint Force operations to include Homeland Defense (HD) 

and Civil Support (CS). 

A.3.5.3 Military Departments’ Chartered Organizations 

Each of the military departments has a UAS program office responsible for the development and 

acquisition of UAS capabilities that meet JROC-validated COCOM needs. Many of DoD UAS 

in development require access to the NAS and foreign domestic airspace. To coordinate related 

technology and standards development, the Air Force, Army, and Navy UAS acquisition 

program managers chartered the Tri-Service UAS Airspace Integration Joint Integrated Product 

Team (JIPT) in December 2005. After conducting a comprehensive assessment of the challenges 

associated with gaining access to civil airspace to meet operational and training requirements, the 

acquisition managers concluded that a coordinating body was needed to focus and align 

resources towards a common set of goals and objectives. The JIPT is organized into issuefocused subteams and support-focused activity centers, one of which is a standards development 

activity center. The subteams are responsible for identifying standards gaps and conducting the 

necessary activities to modify or develop the standards necessary to integrate DoD UAS into the 

NAS. The activity centers, through the Systems Engineering and Integration Team (SEIT) 

provide critical requirements analysis, M&S, test and evaluation integration, and standards 

validation support functions to the subteams. Figure A.5 shows the JIPT’s functional 

organization. 

Figure A.5. JIPT Functional Organization 

The JIPT is the primary DoD organization working on developing standards for the testing and 

operation of UAS in the NAS. A summary of the JIPT’s mission, scope, and two-track strategy 

for integrating UAS into the NAS follows. 

JIPT

Collision

Avoidance

Subteam

Airworthiness 

Subteam

Operations & 

Procedures

Subteam

Control & 

Communications 

Subteam

Systems 

Engineering & 

Integration

Requirements 

Analysis

Modeling & 

Simulation

Test & 

Evaluation

Specialty 

Engineering

Standards 

Development

Activity
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 105 

A.3.5.3.1 Joint Integrated Product Team (JIPT) Mission 

The JIPT will develop the standards, policy, and enabling technology necessary to (1) integrate 

UAS operations with manned aircraft operations in nonsegregated airspace, (2) integrate 

resources and activities with industry and airspace regulatory authorities to achieve greater 

alignment with DoD goals and objectives, (3) ensure compatibility and interoperability of global 

access enabling technology and ATC procedures, and (4) provide the necessary documentation 

to affect changes in the global ATC systems to meet the near-, mid-, and long-term airspace 

access needs of the DoD UAS user community. To assist in this, the JIPT will integrate work 

activities with the FAA, civil SDOs , the DoD PBFA, and Military Department-related airspace 

organizations (where deemed appropriate) to optimize resource allocation; influence standards, 

procedures, and policy adoption schedules; and promote convergence of technical and procedural 

solutions to ensure system interoperability. 

A.3.5.3.2 Joint Integrated Product Team (JIPT) Scope 

The JIPT will contribute to the development of the standards, procedures, policy, and enabling 

technology necessary to safely integrate UAS operations with manned aircraft operations in 

nonsegregated airspace, on a timeline that is in alignment with the acquisition schedules of major 

DoD UAS PORs and the allocated funding for this work. It will also facilitate near- and midterm expansion of DoD UAS use of the NAS through a modified COA process to meet existing 

operational requirements. 

A.3.5.3.3 Joint Integrated Product Team (JIPT) Two-Track Strategy 

In order to accommodate these near-, mid-, and long-term needs, the JIPT intends to use a twotrack strategy in which each track will proceed in parallel with the other. The first track, which is 

focused on resolving near-term operational issues, is an incremental approach that will 

systematically work with the Military Departments and the FAA to expand access to the NAS 

beyond the existing COA restrictions for specific (CONOP/UAS) combinations. Initially, one of 

each Military Department’s UAS operational bases will be focused upon to address, through 

concentrated effort, the near-term challenges of UAS operations in the NAS. Once an approach 

for reducing the restrictions on UAS has been proven to work at these locations, this approach 

will be standardized and then applied to various other base locations to address the Military 

Departments’ near- and mid-term needs. Track 1 success hinges on development and 

standardization of a unified safety analysis framework that the FAA and DoD may agree to in 

principle and in fact. 

The second track will build upon the approach used in Track 1 by using a disciplined systems 

engineering approach to generate performance standards for UAS enabling technologies, as well 

as the operational procedures, that will provide UAS with an appropriate level of safety for the 

airspace in which they will operate. Track 2 should address the long-term needs that each of the 

Military Departments has by ensuring that the necessary standards and procedures are in place 

and that there is a clear path defined for development of the enabling technologies needed to 

ensure safe UAS operations in civil airspace. Figure A.6 depicts this two-track approach. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 106 

Figure A.6. Track 1 and Track 2 Strategies 

Recognizing the criticality of gaining FAA and industry consensus on the approach and rigor for 

developing and validating an integrated materiel/nonmateriel solution, including standards 

needed to operate safely in the NAS, the JIPT has closely aligned its activities with those of 

RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 (see Figure A.7). The SC-203 is chartered by the FAA to 

develop civil Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards (MASPS) and Minimum 

Operating Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS, S&A, and communications and control. 

The JIPT ensures subject matter experts are engaged in the work activities of SC-203 and 

conducts critical planning activities with SC-203 leadership to ensure synergy of effort. It is the 

intent of the JIPT to conduct, or otherwise influence, necessary studies, analysis, and technology 

development activities within the DoD to fill critical knowledge gaps within SC-203 that could 

not be met by other means. This close coupling with a key civil UAS Airspace Integration SDO 

that is recognized and supported by the FAA should increase the probability that the DoD will 

achieve its goals and objectives and should reduce the risk that the DoD standards will be on a 

divergent path from those of the civil community. However, the current SC-203 schedule does 

not meet the timelines of many DoD UAS programs. 

Track 2: Certified Performance Standards for the NAS

Track 1: Incremental Expansion into the NAS

Increasing Access to the NAS

Global Hawk at Beale AFB

Shadow/Warrior at Ft. Huachuca

Maritime Demonstrator at NAS Pax River

Predator at Grand Forks AFB

Baseline: Certificate of Baseline: Certificate of Authorization (COA) for On Authorization (COA) for On-going Operations going Operations

Objective: Manned Aircraft Objective: Manned Aircraft Equivalent Level of Access Equivalent Level of Access 

Installation Specific Installation Specific

CONOPS

By Platform By Platform

Platform Access Platform Access

To

Any Military Airfield Any Military Airfield

Platform Access Platform Access

By

Airspace Category Airspace Category

• Interim Performance Standards Interim Performance Standards

• Procedures Procedures

• Modeling and Simulation Modeling and Simulation

• Equipage Requirements Equipage Requirements

• Testing Testing

• Validation Data Validation Data Systems Safety Analysis 

Model
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 107 

Track 1 (DoD/FAA)

• Programmatic Framework

• Systems Safety Framework

• Process Elements

– Local/Regional CONEMP

– System Characterization

• UAS

• Airspace

• Air Traffic Management

– System Analysis

• Safety

• Operational

– Risks/ Impacts

– Restrictions/Limitations

– Risk Mitigation

• Technical Feasibility

• Cost

• Schedule

• Decision (Yes/No)

– Data Collection

• Safety/Operations Feedback Loop

Track 2 SC-203

• Standards Development Phase

– CONOPS

– Validated Operational Requirements

– Gap Analysis

– Functional Requirements

– Initial Performance Standards

• Subject Matter Experts

• JCTD PHASE I

• Standards Validation Phase

– M&S

– T&E

– Analysis

– JCTD PHASE II (Standards Validation)

• Policy/Regulatory Recommendations

Information – Data

Near 

Mid

Long

VTUAV Warrior Warrior BAMS N-UCAS

PBFA FAA

Figure A.7. Track 1, Track 2, and SC-203 

A.3.5.3.3.1 Track 1 Definition 

The objective of Track 1 is to incrementally expand UAS access to the NAS in the near- to mid 

term to meet current and/or emerging operational requirements. Track 1 will focus on 

installation-specific CONOP by UAS platform. This track will not seek to change national level 

policy. The priority for working each installation-specific UAS CONOP will be determined by 

the individual Military Departments and must comply with the UAS-related standards including 

system hardware and operators’ qualifications/currency requirements. One of the key activities 

within Track 1 will be to perform a standardized safety analysis that will seek access to regional 

airspace through an expanded COA. Track 1 will focus on providing cost-effective, operationally 

useful expansion of UAS access to the NAS that is targeted to specific operational needs of the 

Military Departments. The JIPT will employ both procedural and/or technical solutions to 

mitigate risk and to accomplish this objective. 

To facilitate a standardized Track 1 approach, the JIPT will work with the FAA’s Unmanned 

Aircraft Program Office to establish a mutually agreeable process in which to evaluate DoD 

requests for expanded airspace access. Based on this integrated approach with the FAA, the JIPT 

will provide the requesting Military Department with the appropriate information to conduct the 

safety study and submit a complete package to the FAA for final approval. Once a sufficient 

body of data has been collected, the JIPT will expand the Track 1 efforts beyond a single 

installation with a specific UAS CONOP and move toward an integrated approach for increased 

UAS access. This will be accomplished through additional analysis and data collected from 

ongoing operations to substantiate the ability to safely operate a given UAS outside DoDcontrolled airfields, or alternatively, multiple UAS platforms out of a single DoD-controlled 

airfield. The compilation of the individual installation efforts into an integrated NAS-level 

analysis should support the performance standards development effort in Track 2. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 108 

The incremental approach to airspace integration in Track 1 should result in two key outcomes: 

 DoD will have an avenue to meet near- to mid-term operational needs to operate in the NAS, 

and 

 It will provide a forum for other airspace users, regulators, and the general public to become 

comfortable with the level of safety demonstrated by DoD UAS operations. 

A.3.5.3.3.2 Track 2 Definition 

The objective of Track 2 is to develop the performance standards for enabling DoD UAS 

operations and to recommend the necessary changes to existing FAA policy and/or CFR required 

to routinely operate UAS within the NAS. Track 2, therefore, will at a minimum attempt to 

establish and validate the standards needed to provide UAS with a level of safety equivalent to 

that of manned aircraft. To arrive at the needed performance standards, the JIPT will integrate 

the data collected from flight operations in Track 1 with an initial set of performance standards. 

These standards will be developed in coordination with the appropriate organizations needed to 

concur on an initial set of standards. The JIPT will then proceed with a detailed assessment of 

these initial performance standards through a rigorous M&S analysis effort. The JIPT will work, 

in coordination with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office through the DoD PBFA and 

the Military Departments’ airspace functional organizations (i.e. Air Force Flight Standards 

Agency, U.S. Army Aeronautical Service Agency, the Chief of Naval Operations (Code N88F), 

and Headquarters, Marine Corps [HQMC] Aviation [APC]) to ensure that the M&S approach 

taken by the JIPT has the degree of rigor and specificity needed by the FAA for high-confidence 

results. The JIPT’s M&S activity will be open to FAA and FAA-designated agents to advise on 

the degree of rigor for high-confidence results. As these standards are developed and validated, 

the JIPT will provide data and results to the SDOs used by the FAA for developing certified 

standards. 

Once initial results from the M&S activity are produced, an initial evaluation of the overall UAS 

performance can be determined, and appropriate modifications can be made to the performance 

standards until the appropriate level of safety is achieved for the UAS. These performance 

standards will then be validated through an appropriate test and evaluation phase that will 

validate the M&S assumptions and performance characteristics and provide the needed realworld data to substantiate and validate the standards themselves. These validated performance 

standards will then be provided to the appropriate SDOs for developing certified regulatory 

guidance for the FAA. In addition, the JIPT intends to coordinate this work (technology 

development, acquisition, demonstrations, flight test) through the individual Military 

Departments’ UAS program offices, which will be responsible for meeting the finalized set of 

standards and procedures. The JIPT will then refine the Track 1 analysis and data collection 

activities to improve the fidelity of the validation process. These refinements will be made in 

close coordination with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office to continuously align our 

process with their analysis requirements. 

A.3.5.3.3.3 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Airspace Integration Roadmap 

Track 1 and Track 2 strategy implementation is outlined in the proposed UAS Airspace 

Integration Roadmap (see Figure A.8), which is currently being socialized within the broader 

DoD stakeholder community. The degree to which this plan will be successful depends upon the 

following: 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 109 

 The key stakeholders organizations and communities must reach consensus on a common 

path forward, and 

 The effort must be prioritized in terms of expertise applied to the effort along with the 

appropriate level of funding to execute on the timeline provided. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 110 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 111 

APPENDIX B. UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES (UGVS) 

B.1 All-Purpose Remote Transport System 

(ARTS) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Applied Research Associates – Vertek Division 

Inventory: 5 Prototypes/74 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The ARTS is a fielded, low-cost, survivable robotics 

platform (8100 lbs.) capable of remote operations in various mission 

profiles. The system can remotely employ an array of tools and attachments to detect, assess, and render safe large 

improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and large-vehicle bombs as well as clear unexploded ordnance (UXO) from 

prepared areas. In addition, the system employs a variety of advanced navigation, control, and sensing systems. 

Characteristics:

ARTS 

Size 113 in × 64 in × 78 in 

Weight 8100 lb 

Payload Capacity 3500 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 6–8 hr 

Control – Radio 1.5-mi radius 

Control – Teleoperation 1.5-nm radius 

Interoperability Planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Blade and shield assembly 

 Robotic backhoe 

 Improved water cannon mount 

Planned:

 Submunitions clearance system 

 Data feedback system 

 Box rake 

 Improved operator control station 

 ARTS laser ordnance neutralization system 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 112 

B.2 Anti-Personnel Mine Clearing System, Remote Control (MV-4B) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: DOK-ing Co. (Croatia) 

Inventory: 21 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The MV-4B system is a mechanical antipersonnel mine 

clearing system that uses a chain flail and hammers to mechanically defeat 

antipersonnel mines. This system has been procured by the Army to meet 

the robotic combat support system requirement as a formal Army 

acquisition program to provide current mine-clearing capability. Systems 

are currently deployed in Afghanistan to perform countermine operations and in Iraq to perform Army engineer 

route clearance missions. 

Characteristics:

MV-4B 

Size 209 in × 79 in × 55 in (with arms out) 

Weight 12,600 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance N/A 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Mini-flail system 

 Anti-tank mine rollers 

 Blade 

 Large gripper 

Planned:

 None 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 113 

B.3 Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) 

User Service: Army (Deferred) 

Manufacturer: BAE Systems 

Inventory: 675 To Be Fielded To 15 FCS (BCT) 

Status: POR 

Background: The Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) is a 9.3-ton 

common robotic chassis with two specific mission configurations. 

The ARV-Reconnaissance Surveillance Targeting Vehicle will 

support the mounted force providing reconnaissance and 

surveillance. Using sophisticated on-board sensors, the ARVRSTAs will detect, recognize, and identify targets with enough 

fidelity to support the use of Line Of Sight (LOS), Beyond Line Of 

Sight (BLOS), and non-LOS assets to support cooperative engagements. The ARV-A will have an array of lethal 

armament consisting of medium-caliber cannon, a missile system, and a machine gun system. When teamed with 

manned ground vehicles (MGVs) in the Combined Arms Battalion, the ARV-A and ARV-RSTA enable the 

commander to extend the area of influence and significantly enhance situational awareness, lethality, survivability, 

and agility. Due to funding constraints in FY2008–13, the ARV development is deferred. At the time of deferral, the 

ARV design was based on the Crusher platform from the DARPA/Army UPI program. Continued research and 

development after the deferral include the TARDEC RVCA and APD efforts, also based on the Crusher platform 

and the recipient of one of the DARPA Crushers from the UPI program as a transition between DARPA and the 

Army. 

Characteristics:

ARV-RSTA ARV-A 

Size 176 in × 99 in × 96.5 in 

Weight 18,600 lb 

Payload Capacity Mission packages 

Performance: 

Endurance 216 nm 

Control MGV crew station or centralized controller; semi-autonomous/teleoperated 

Interoperability JAUS-compliant 

ANS with GPS with INS, perception sensors for obstacle detection and avoidance, 

and autonomous navigation algorithms 

Unmanned ground sensors, hazard clear lane marker, and remote chemical detection 

Mission Package Payloads 

Medium-range EO/IR with 16 ft mast 

M240 ROK weapon 7.62 mm, 2400 

rounds 

Ammunition mix: 4/1 ball/tracer 

Medium-range EO/IR 

MK44 primary weapon 30 mm, 120 rounds 

Ammunition mix: 90 armor-piercing fin 

stabilized discarding sabot and 

30 high-explosive air burst 

LOS launcher 

Javelin Blk I (mounted), 2 missiles 

M240 ROK secondary weapon 7.62 mm, 

coaxial to MK44, 600 rounds 

Ammunition mix: 4/1 ball/tracer 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 114 

B.4 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Pearson Engineering, Ltd. (United Kingdom) 

Inventory: 33 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Marine Corps program Assault Breacher Vehicle 

(ABV) is a tracked, combat engineer vehicle designed to breach 

minefields and complex obstacles and provide in-stride breaching 

capability. The ABV uses an M1A1 tank chassis as a platform. 

Equipment includes a full-width mine plow, two Mk 155 linear 

demolition charge systems, a light-vehicle obscuration smoke system, 

two-lane marking systems, and a remote control system. The ABV can be operated manually by a live crew or 

remotely using remote control. The Robotic Systems Joint Project Office is currently coordinating fielding 

requirements with Marine Corps Systems Command and the Program Manager of Engineer Systems. The number of 

vehicles being fielded with the remote control system kit is being determined. 

Characteristics:

ABV 

Size M1A1 tank chassis 

Weight 63 T 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance N/A 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Full-width mine plow 

 Combat dozer blade 

 Two Mk 155 linear demolition charges 

 Remote control system 

 Lane marketing system 

 Laser rangefinder 

 Smoke grenade system 

 Weapon platform station 

Planned:

 None 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 115 

B.5 Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (BEAR) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Vecna Technologies, Inc. 

Inventory: 3 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR

Laboratory Prototypes Prototype & Objective Configuration 

Background: This highly agile and powerful mobile robot is capable of lifting and carrying a combat casualty from 

hazardous areas including multistory buildings or from under fire to a safe area where medical assessment and 

treatment can be performed by a combat medic prior to evacuation. Three successive prototypes have been built. 

The initial laboratory prototype was built on a two-wheeled Segway base. The subsequent robot prototype uses a 

hybrid wheeled/tracked base with a Segway-type dynamic balancing (gyro-based) system. The dynamic balancing 

system and variable-geometry hybrid base give the robot a high degree of mobility over rough, uneven terrain and 

dynamic balancing behaviors for high-speed mobility when speed is needed. The mobility base is tightly integrated 

with a powerful but sensitive upper body with arms, capable of gently cradling a load of up to 500 lbs. The 

operational prototype BEAR will include a mobility base composed of independently controlled tracked and 

wheeled “legs” that are tightly integrated with a powerful but sensitive upper body with robotic manipulator “arms.” 

The track array will be segmented in two places allowing the robot to tilt forward or backward and bend down on its 

“knees” to pick up a casualty and maintain a low profile on the battlefield. The segmented design approach will 

enable the robot to recover from falling or being knocked over from any position. When conditions permit, the 

prototype has demonstrated the ability to travel at high speed in a fully erect posture with and without a casualty. 

Also, the prototype can scale stairs and negotiate the narrow passages common to urban warfare. Future operational 

capabilities include an interface that will allow the BEAR to be carried on the exterior of military vehicles, allowing 

the BEAR to be present and ready when needed. Current and planned payloads include casualty assessment and 

diagnostic instruments and chemical, biological agent, and IED detection systems. Four user-friendly OCUs have 

been developed by ARL and are being adapted by TATRC to the BEAR: (1) isometric controller grip mounted on 

front of M4 rifle to control robots with rifle in ready position; (2) instrumented glove (iGlove) tactile glove robot 

controller (can use hand and arm signals as do small unit infantry leaders); (3) tactile armband and belt (for feedback 

to operator); and (4) three-dimensional viewer. 

Characteristics: 

BEAR 

Size 24 in wide × 10 in deep × 63 in tall at full height 

< 10 in tall at minimum height (“kneeling position”) 

Weight 240 lb 

Payload Capacity 500 lb 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 116 

Performance: 

Endurance 6 hr of active use on battery; indefinite with solid oxide fuel cell and reformer 

Control JAUS, teleoperated, semi-autonomous 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current: Casualty assessment and rescue 

Planned: Chemical/biological/nuclear agent and IED explosive detection 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 117 

B.6 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) UGV (CUGV) 

Service: Army 

Manufacturer: iRobot 

Inventory: None currently fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear 

(CBRN) UGV (CUGV) is an integration of CBRN sensors/detectors 

and chemical vapor sampling onto a UGV. The CUGV is included in 

the Joint Service Light Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance 

System Increment 2 (J2) equipment set to provide a total CBRN 

reconnaissance package supporting manned and unmanned 

reconnaissance operations. 

The CUGV uses the capabilities developed and demonstrated during the CBRN Unmanned Ground Reconnaissance 

Advanced Concept Technical Demonstration. 

Characteristics:

CUGV 

Size 20.5 in × 33 in × 16 in (robot) 

18 in × 14.5 in × 8.75 in (OCU) 

Weight <120 lb robot, payloads, and OCU 

Payload Capacity 35 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 2–4 hr 

Control – Teleoperation 1000–3280 ft range 

Interoperability CREW, stand-alone system 

Mission Package Payloads 1) Chemical detection/identification 

2) Radiological detection 

3) A sorbent tube sampling system was also integrated. The sampling system 

gives Warfighters the ability to collect chemical vapors for later analysis or use as 

evidence. 

4) A temperature and humidity sensor was also integrated. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 118 

B.7 Crusher Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle 

User Service: US Army 

Manufacturer: Carnegie Mellon University, National 

Robotics Engineering Center 

Inventory: 2 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Crusher vehicle was designed and built 

within the DARPA Tactical Technology Office’s (TTO) 

UPI program as a collaborative research and technology 

effort for the U.S. Army. Crusher was developed as a 

technology demonstrator representative of the FCS 

program’s Armed Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV). Under 

the UPI program from 2004 to 2008, two Crushers were 

developed with testing to evaluate both mobility and autonomy systems. The platforms were integrated with several 

sensor types to enhance autonomous mobility performance and demonstrate UGV maneuver. One Crusher platform 

was transitioned to the U.S. Army RDECOM TARDEC to support further FCS supporting research under the 

Robotic Vehicle Control Architectures Advanced Technology Objective RVCA ATO effort and the Autonomous 

Platform Demonstrator (APD) programs. APD is currently developing a follow-on platform based on Crusher and 

ARV requirements. Testing and experimentation under UPI completed in 2008 after a total of 10 DARPA-hosted 

experiments at sites around the United States, including several military bases/posts, compiling over 1400 

kilometers traversed. 

Characteristics: 

Crusher 

Size 201 in long × 102 in wide × 60 in high 

Weight 13,200 lb 

Payload Capacity 8000 lb (includes armor) 

Performance: 

Top Speed 26 mph 

Slope >40° forward, >30° side 

Traversing Obstacles 4 ft step, 80 in trench 

Control RC, teleoperation, waypoint following, and full autonomy 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 119 

B.8 Dragon Runner 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Automatika 

Inventory: 16 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Dragon Runner is a joint development effort between the 

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) and Carnegie Mellon 

University. Dragon Runner is a man-portable system that is completely 

contained in a single backpack (robot, operator control unit, and control 

computer). It is used by the Marine Corps for route clearing, building clearing, and trip-wire investigation 

operations. With its dump body attachment, Dragon Runner is capable of delivering charges to a designated location 

for remote detonation of IEDs. There have been 12 systems procured, with 10 currently fielded, and an additional 

order of 4 systems was delivered in November 2006 for a total of 16 systems fielded. 

Characteristics:

Dragon Runner 

Size 16.6 in × 12.2 in × 6 in 

Weight 17 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 45 min (full motion)/6 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 120 

B.9 Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle (TUGV) 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Carnegie Mellon University 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Marine Corps program Gladiator is an armed, armored 

combat robot to reduce risk and neutralize threats to the Warfighter. The 

Gladiator carries a range of sensors and weapons including forwardlooking infrared and daylight cameras, shoulder-launched multipurpose 

assault weapons, M240 or M249 machine guns, a light-vehicle obscurant 

smoke system, and an antipersonnel obstacle breaching system. The 

system is teleoperated by a Marine up to 1 nautical mile LOS from the 

vehicle. The Robotic Systems Joint Project Office is coordinating requirements with Marine Corps Combat 

Development Command, but the program is currently unfunded. 

Characteristics:

Gladiator 

Size 80 in × 51 in × 60 in 

Weight 2800 lb 

Payload Capacity 400 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 24 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – Teleoperation Up to 1 nm 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Pan/tilt/zoom day/night video camera 

 Integrated position-locating system 

 Laser rangefinder 

 Acoustic detection system 

 Antitampering/handling devices 

 Antipersonnel/obstacle breaching system 

 M240G medium machine gun 

 M249 squad automatic weapon 

 Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon 

 Light-vehicle obscuration smoke system 

 Automatic chemical agent detection alarm 

 AN/VDR-2 nuclear detection system 

 Multipurpose cart 

Planned:

 Mine-detection capabilities 

 Mine-proofing (antipersonnel mines) 

 Lane marking 

 Urban breaching 

 Tactical casualty evacuation 

 Combat resupply 

 Countersniper activities 

 Communications relay 

 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 121 

B.10 Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) MK 1 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal (EOD) 

User Service: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force 

Manufacturer: iRobot Corp. (MK 1) and Foster-Miller, Inc. (MK 2) 

Inventory: 1439 Fielded; Total Objective of 2,338 by FY13 

Status: POR 

Background: The Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) is a 

program of record that achieved production approval in 2005. The 

MTRS consists of two configurations, the MK 1 MOD Robot, EOD 

and the MK 2 MOD 0 Robot, EOD. The MK 1 is the military version 

of the iRobot PackBot EOD. The MK 2 is the military version of the 

Foster-Miller TALON IV. The purpose of the MK 1 and MK 2 is to 

complement/augment the military EOD technician performing 

reconnaissance, disruption, and disposal during extremely hazardous 

EOD missions involving UXOs and IEDs. Communication between the 

operator control unit (OCU) and the UGV is accomplished via RF or a 

fiber optic cable. The MK 1 and MK 2 also have an integrated firing 

circuit that enables interoperability with EOD explosive tools. The 

program is currently in the Operations & Support Phase of the AT&L life 

cycle. 

Characteristics:

MTRS Talon MTRS PackBot 

Size 33 in × 23 in × 25 in 31 in × 20 in × 15 in 

Weight 165 lb (includes vehicle, OCU, and batteries 

for two missions) 

135 lb (includes vehicle, OCU, and 

batteries for two missions) 

Payload Capacity 10 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 4 hr against realistic mission profile 2 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – FO Cable/Radio 656/2624 ft 

Interoperability JAUS, RS-232 payloads, USB payloads 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Manipulator 

 Extendable pan/tilt/zoom video camera 

 Hand Tools 

 C4 explosive charges 

 Water Bottle Charge Disrupters 

Planned:

 Nuclear detection 

 Chemical detection 

 Render safe tools 

 Disruption tools 

 Disposal tools 

 Biological agent detection tools 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 122 

B.11 Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Hydrema Joint Stock Co. 

Inventory: 1 Prototype/3 Additional In Progress/10 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: For supporting mine clearing operations on expeditionary 

airfields, the Air Force employs the Mine Area Clearance Equipment 

(MACE) flail system, which is rapidly lowered into position at the rear of 

the vehicle. The system can clear a mine path 11.5 ft. wide. The flail 

assembly consists of a rotating axle with 72 chains attached; the end of 

each of the chains is fitted with a hammer head weighing 2 lbs. The axle rotates at up to 700 revolutions per minute 

(RPM). 

Characteristics:

MACE 

Size 8.8 ft × 27.9 ft × 9.2 ft 

Weight 39,600 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 8+ hr 

Control Assisted teleoperation 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Mine-clearing flail 

Planned:

 None 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 123 

B.12 MK 3 MOD 0 Remote Ordnance Neutralization System (RONS) 

User Service: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Remotec. 

Inventory: 324 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The MK 3 MOD 0 Remote Ordnance Neutralization 

System (RONS) is a program of record that achieved production approval 

in 1999. The MK 3 is the military version of the Remotec Andros V-A. 

The RONS complements/augments the EOD technician when performing 

reconnaissance, access, render safe, pick-up and carry away, and disposal during extremely hazardous missions 

involving UXO and IEDs. Communication between the Operators Control Station (OCS) and the UGV is 

accomplished via RF or a fiber optic cable. The RONS also has an integrated firing circuit that enables 

interoperability with EOD explosive tools. The program is currently in the Operations & Support Phase of the 

AT&L life cycle. 

Characteristics:

RONS 

Size 36 in × 29 in × 61 in 

Weight 700 lb 

Payload Capacity 60 lb on arm 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – FO Cable/Radio 2493 ft/3280 ft 

Interoperability Standalone system, RS-232 payloads 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Extendable pan/tilt/zoom video camera 

 Manipulator 

 Shotgun 

 0.50-caliber de-armer 

 Jet remote-opening device 

 PAN disrupter 

 RE-70 (MK 40 Mod 0 UXO disrupter) 

 Nuclear and chemical detection 

 Cordless power tools 

 Trailer hitch 

 Window breaker 

 Water disruption tools 

 Small-caliber de-armer (MK 38 Mod 0) 

 Advanced radiographic system 

 Tabletop controller 

 Dual EOD disrupter 

 Medium directional energetic tool 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 124 

B.13 MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

User Service: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force 

Manufacturer: Initial Production – Innovative Response Technologies; 

Future Production - TBD 

Inventory: 1842 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD), is a program of record that achieved production approval in 2007. 

The MK 4 is the military version of what is commonly known as the 

BOMBOT. .The MK 4 is a low-cost, expendable robot for IED 

neutralization. It is a small, fast, off-road vehicle equipped with a small 

explosive charge delivery system, and it is remotely controlled using either 

video feedback or simply LOS radio. In employment, a MK 4 is driven to 

an IED, and a C4 explosive charge is dropped from the vehicle, which is 

then driven away, if practical, before the charge is remotely detonated. The program is currently in the Operations & 

Support Phase of the Acquisition Technology and Logistics (AT&L) life cycle. 

Characteristics:

MK 4 MOD 0 Robot, EOD 

Size 24 in × 19 in × 34 in 

Weight 29 lb 

Payload Capacity 15 lb 

Performance: 

Control – Radio 1200 ft 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 C4 explosive charges 

 Water Bottle Charge Disrupters 

Planned:

 None 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 125 

B.14 Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System (MDARS) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Dynamics Robotics Systems 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes/30 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System (MDARS) 

provides commanders with a robotic capability for conducting semi-autonomous 

random patrols and surveillance activities. The MDARS enhances physical security, 

reduces personnel exposure in dangerous situations, provides continuous 

surveillance over unprotected high-value inventory, reduces manpower 

requirements, and is an effective means of providing compensatory security in the 

event of security system malfunction. The MDARS Modernization Program 

includes detection on the move, increased sensor detection and assessment range, 

increased platform speed and mobility, and increased system reliability. 

Characteristics:

MDARS 

Size 98 in × 62.5 in × 46 in 

Weight 3140 lb 

Payload Capacity 300 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 12 hr 

Control – Ethernet Local: up to 6.2 mi with relays; using VPN secure connection demonstrated control 

from multiple locations remote from the MDARS vehicles 

Control – Teleoperation Same as above 

Interoperability Planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 IDAS 

 Barrier assessment 

 Product assessment 

Planned:

 Non-lethal response 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 126 

B.15 Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot (MARCbot) 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Exponent, Inc. 

Inventory: 670 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot 

(MARCbot) is a low-cost IED investigative robot used by Army and Marine 

Corps personnel to provide a standoff investigation of suspected IED 

emplacements. MARCbot uses an articulating arm to maneuver a camera 

into position to confirm or deny a suspected IED. The ability to confirm 

IEDs reduces the number of false alarm calls to EOD technicians and allows 

the patrol or convoy to proceed with minimal exposure to hostile environments. The U.S. Government has 

purchased an engineering drawing package with Government purpose rights, and Applied Geo Technologies has 

proven their production capability as an additional source for procurement. 

Characteristics:

MARCbot 

Size 24.5 in × 18.5 in × 13.5 in 

Weight 25 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 4 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Retractable pan and tilt color camera 

Planned:

 FIDO explosive “sniffer” 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 127 

B.16 Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle (MULE) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control 

Inventory: 16 Prototypes/1746 To Be Fielded (MULE-T: 5 prototypes, 567 

production units; MULE-CM: 5 prototypes, 477 production units; ARV 

A(L): 6 prototypes, 702 production units) 

Status: POR 

Background: The Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle 

(MULE) program has a 3.5-ton common chassis with three variants to 

support the dismounted soldier and enhance the clearing of antitank mines. 

The MULE will carry 1900 lbs. of equipment and rucksacks for dismounted 

infantry squads with mobility to follow the squad in complex terrain. The 

MULE-CM will provide the capability to detect, mark, and neutralize 

antitank mines by integrating the FCS (BCT) Ground Standoff Mine 

Detection System (GSTAMIDS). The ARV-A(L) will have integrated 

weapons and an RSTA package to support dismounted infantry in locating 

and destroying enemy platforms and positions. 

Characteristics: 

MULE-T MULE-CM ARV-A(L) 

Size (sensor and deployment 

mechanisms stowed) 

171.4 in × 88.3 in × 77.5 in 171.4 in × 95 in × 99.4 in 171.4 in × 88.3 in × 101.1 

in 

Weight 7325 lb 

Payload Capacity 1900–2400 lb Integrate GSTAMIDS Integrate weapon stations 

and sensors 

Performance: 

Endurance 200 km 

Control MGV crew station or centralized controller 

Semi-autonomous/teleoperated 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Equipment Payloads ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm 

suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel 

radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point 

detection system 

PSMRS supply status 

monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

CID/Transponder 

ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm 

suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel 

radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point 

detection system 

PSMRS supply status 

monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

GSTAMIDS: Anti-tank 

mine detection, lane 

marking, mine 

neutralization 

CID/Transponder 

ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm 

suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel 

radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point 

detection system 

PSMRS supply status 

monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

Two Javelin missiles 

M240 machine gun 

EO/IR rangefinder/target 

designator 

CID 

Interrogator/Transponder 

M6 Countermeasure 

Non-lethal discharger 

ARV-A(L) 

MULE-T 

MULE-CM 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 128 

B.17 Omni-Directional Inspection System (ODIS) 

User Service: JGRE 

Manufacturer: Kuchera Defense Systems 

Inventory: 15 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Omni-Directional Inspection System (ODIS) is a prototype 

under-vehicle inspection platform that weighs approximately 40 lbs. The 

ODIS is being developed and assessed for applications pertaining to sealed 

perimeter checkpoint security and includes newly improved and enhanced 

modular wheel designs providing the capability for field servicing without 

evacuation to the United States. This effort will also evaluate the utility of potential single-platform multi- missions 

rather than relying on multiple robot systems. There are approximately 15 ODIS prototypes employed in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom today. 

Characteristics:

ODIS 

Size 26 in × 24 in × 4 in 

Weight 40 lb 

Payload Capacity 40 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr per battery 

Control – Teleoperation Camera up to 1312 ft 

Control – Radio Range up to 3 nm 

Interoperability Interfaces with proprietary OCU, planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Television camera 

 Infrared camera 

 Chemical (blister and nerve agent) detector 

 Radiological detector 

Planned:

 Future chemical-biological sensors 

 Radiological sensors 

 Nitrate sensors 

 Zipper mast capability 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 129 

B.18 Robo-Trencher 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Tractor – Ditch Witch Inc.; Robotic Kit – Applied 

Research Associates, Vertek Division 

Inventory: 2 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Air Force Robo-Trencher is a fielded, 

converted Ditch Witch 7610 trencher used by engineering 

installation squadrons for communications installations. The 

trencher has been modified using previously developed modular, fielded ARTS robotic components. Robo-Trencher 

is able to provide a standoff capability to perform cable trenching and excavation mission in hazardous areas. There 

are two Robo-Trenchers currently fielded with no more planned. 

Characteristics:

Robo-Trencher 

Size 8 ft × 11 ft × 6 ft 

Weight 12,000 lb maximum 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 8+ hr 

Control Teleoperated up to 1.5 nm LOS 

Interoperability Proprietary OCU control, compatible with ARTS 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Trencher tools 

 Backhoe tool 

Planned:

 None 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 130 

B.19 Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Applied Perception, Inc. 

Inventory: 1 Prototype 

Status: NPOR

Background: This program involves 

building a prototype robotic patient 

extraction and evacuation system with 

teleoperation, semi-autonomous, and 

autonomous control capabilities 

implemented on a marsupial robotic vehicle pair: a larger robotic evacuation vehicle 

(REV) for long-range patient evacuation (from first responder medic to forward 

casualty collection and treatment site) and a smaller robotic extraction vehicle (REX) 

for short-range patient extraction (from site of injury to soldier first responder or 

medic). The base Tactical Amphibious Ground Support System (TAGS) UGV was 

identified by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command as having potential for 

robotic sentry monitoring and reconnaissance tasks. The hardware and software 

required for both the medical and sentry applications are substantially similar, with the 

main systematic differences being in the mission-specific payload and application of 

the underlying robotic vehicle functions. In addition to the core autonomous 

navigation and patient detection technologies, a number of vehicle payloads and other 

capabilities have been developed in this program that are widely applicable to a number of robotic platforms. These 

include the following: 

 Two-way video and audio telemedicine systems for communications between patient and a remote medic 

 Combined laser/radar obstacle detection and avoidance (also used for safeguarded teleoperation) 

 Radar-based vehicle anti-tamper system to detect intruders and direct a camera or other device to their location 

 Automatic docking of the REX into the REV marsupial bay 

 Stereo-based navigation system developed under DARPA’s Learning for Autonomous Ground Robots Program 

 Three-dimensional laser rangefinder data collection for global map-building of the environment 

 Global path planning for vehicle motion based on the above created maps, and 

 Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS)-compliant OCU and robot software. 

Work continues supported by Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) and TARDEC to 

develop patient transport and driver/attendant payloads for the TAGS-Common eXperimental (CX) platform that are 

modular and removable by two soldiers. Both modules are being fitted with lightweight removable armor. The 

objective is to demonstrate that the generic TAGS-CX platform can be rapidly configured or reconfigured for 

multiple missions including patient evacuation. JAUS communications with and among the UGVs, their force 

protection sensors, and medical payloads are being implemented via a secure tri-band orthogonal frequency division 

multiplexing ultra-wide band mesh network developed and implemented by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). 

Characteristics:

Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation 

Size 11.3 ft × 7.2 ft × 5.8 ft 

Weight 6000 lb 

Payload Capacity 2000 lb (in order to maintain top speed of vehicle) 

Performance: 

Endurance 108 nm 

Control JAUS, teleoperated, semi-autonomous 

Interoperability JAUS, modular JAUS payloads 

Initial Fixed Patient Pod Prototype Configuration 

Objective Modular 

Configuration 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 131 

B.20 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: iRobot 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes/1245 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) is a lightweight, 

man-transportable system capable of operating in urban terrain, tunnels, sewers, 

and caves. It will weigh less than 30 lbs. and carry up to 6 lbs. of payload. 

Capabilities will include a manipulator arm, fiber optic tether, EO/IR sensor, laser 

rangefinder, laser target designator, and chemical/ radiological/nuclear detector. The SUGV is battery-operated and 

capable of conducting 6-hour missions in tunnels, sewers, caves, and military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) 

areas. The SUGV is required to fit into two modular lightweight load-carrying equipment (MOLLE) packs. Current 

design allows the vehicle to fit into one MOLLE pack, with ancillary equipment (controller, payloads, extra 

batteries, etc.) carried in a second MOLLE pack. 

Characteristics:

SUGV 

Size 23.9 in × 16.7 in × 6.5 in 

Weight 32 lbs 

Payload Capacity 4 lbs 

Performance: 

Endurance 6 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability FCS network, JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current:

 Manipulator arm 

 Fiber optic tether 

 Laser target designator 

 Chemical/radiological/nuclear detector 

 Objective: 

 Mine detector 

 Sense-through-the-wall sensor 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 132 

B.21 Throwbot 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Recon Robotics 

Inventory: 30 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Throwbot is a small, throwable robot designed for building clearing 

and short-range reconnaissance missions. It has a daylight-only camera and is 

capable of righting itself upon deployment. Throwbot was designed at the 

University of Minnesota and is produced by Recon Robotics in Minneapolis. There are 30 units procured and fielded 

for assessment. 

Characteristics:

Throwbot 

Size 5.9 in × 2.5 in 

Weight 12 oz 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads N/A 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 133 

B.22 Toughbot 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Omnitech 

Inventory: 51 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Toughbot is a small, throwable robot designed for building 

clearing and short-range reconnaissance missions. It contains a driving 

camera, an omni-directional camera, and an audio sensor. 

Characteristics:

Toughbot 

Size 6 in × 8 in 

Weight 2.1 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads N/A 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 134 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 135 

APPENDIX C. UNMANNED MARITIME SYSTEMS (UMSS) 

C.1 Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) 

C.1.1 Fleet Class USVs 

C.1.1.1 Antisubmarine Warfare Unmanned Surface Vehicle (ASW USV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: General Dynamics Robotics Systems (GDRS) 

Inventory: Delivered to Navy – 2; Total Inventory Requirement -TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) USV 

is the Mission System on the LCS ASW Mission 

Package. It was designed as a common unmanned surface 

platform capable of carrying and operating different ASW 

payloads. The Government’s EDM, based on open ocean 

racing and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) high-speed 

vehicles technology, can be fitted with modular ASW 

payloads and operate with semi-autonomous control and 

navigation functionality. Current payloads include 

Unmanned Dipping Sonar (UDS), USV Towed Array 

System (UTAS) and the Multi-Static Off-Board Source 

(MSOBS). The core subsystems include surface search 

radar and advanced communications. The surface search radar, required for navigation, can also detect incoming 

threats. The ASW USV is capable of extended-duration operations with a high-payload capacity supporting multiple 

mission sensor systems enabling high-speed transits to operational areas. 

Characteristics:

ASW USV 

Length 36 ft 

Full-Load Displacement 23,049 lb. 

Payload 5000 lb 

Hull Form Aluminum/Air Entrapment Monohull 

Engines Twin Diesels with Water Jets 

Performance:

Tow 1600 lb/20 kt 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 136 

C.1.1.2 Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Oregon Iron Works 

Inventory: Delivered to Navy – 1; Total Inventory Requirement – TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Unmanned Surface 

Vehicle (USV) is the Mission System on the LCS MCM Mission Package. It 

was selected as the unmanned platform to “get the man out of the minefield” 

and will be used to tow the Unmanned Surface Sweep System (USSS) to clear 

minefields. The Government’s EDM was derived from an ONR developmental project for high tow force and has a 

Mission bay that allows for modular payloads. The craft hull was designed by Naval Surface Warfare Center, 

Carderock Division, and completed construction by Oregon Iron Works (OIW) Dec 2007. The Craft Command and 

Control system was designed by SPAWAR Systems Center. USV core system controller and communications were 

developed and integrated at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City. The USV Platform Controller 

for LCS is compliant with the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS). Full Functional Tests were 

completed at Ft. Monroe, VA in June 2008 and validated Functional Requirements. 

Characteristics:

MCM USV 

Length 39 ft 

Full-Load Displacement 22,500 lb 

Payload 4000 lb without fuel 

Hullform Semi-planing monohull 

Engines Twin diesel (540 mph each) 

Performance:

Tow 2500 lb @ 25 knots 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 137 

C.1.1.3 SEAFOX 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northwind Marine 

Inventory: 2 SEAFOX Mk I Delivered, 6 SEAFOX Mk II Planned Deliveries 

by December 2008 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The SEAFOX USV will provide a remote, unmanned ISR 

capability supporting multiple mission areas such as: Riverine Operations, 

Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO), Maritime Domain Awareness 

(MDA), Port Security, and Autonomous Operations (Future Naval 

Capability). The SEAFOX USV has a JP-5 jet engine and a payload 

consisting of a Command and Control, Communications, and Intelligence 

(C3I) system. The C3I payload has an amplified military band command and 

control radio, autonomous way-point navigation, amplified communications, 

and intelligence consisting of: wide bandwidth video, object tracking and 

dejitter software, digital zoom Infra-Red (IR) camera, digital zoom daylight 

color camera, 3x70 degree navigation cameras, remote camera operation 

station, remote ground station, remotely activated flood lighting, remotely 

activated hailer/announcement system, and navigation/ strobe safety lights. In 

particular, SEAFOX 1 will have enhanced communications ability with 4 

bands (2 MIL, 2 ISM), LCS bands, Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

communications, and ranges of approximately 15 nautical mile (NM) Line Of Sight (LOS), 60 NM UAS, and 100 

NM relay. 

Characteristics: 

SEAFOX, Mk II 

Length 17 ft Beam 7.8 ft. 

Draft 0.9 ft. Displacement (full load) 2,800 lb 

Engine Mercury 185HP (JP-5) Propulsion Mercury Sport Jet 

Fuel Capacity 40 Gal. Fuel Type JP-5 or JP-8/Jet-A 

Performance:

Maximum Speed 38+ kts Cruise Speed 25 kts 

Range @ cruise speed 200 nm 

Payload capacity 500+ lb 

Endurance 12 hrs. 

MK I 

MK II 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 138 

C.2 Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) 

C.2.1 Heavyweight UUVs 

C.2.1.1 Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (BPAUV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Bluefin Robotics Corp 

Inventory: 1 Delivered 

Status: POR 

Background: Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Undersea 

Vehicles (BPAUVs) have been employed in Office of Naval 

Research (ONR) Science and Technology experiments since 

1999. The BPAUV provides minehunting and Intelligence 

Preparation of the Battlespace (IPB) capability. The LCS 

BPAUV is a demonstration system to mitigate ship 

integration risk of heavyweight UUVs (especially launch and 

recovery). The BPAUV system consists of 2 vehicles, 

support equipment, spares, and a transportation van. The 

BPAUV system will be shipped and stored in a Seaframe 

Type 1 module. BPAUV has been delivered to the LCS program as part of Mission Package 1. 

Characteristics:

BPAUV 

Length 11 ft 

Diameter 21" 

Batteries 2X 3.5 KWhr 

Lithium Ion Polymer 

Vehicle Weight 750 lb 

Mission Module Weight 15,320 lb Data Link(s) Freewave HF 

Iridium SATCOM 

Performance:

Endurance 18 hr Speed 3 kt 

Operating Depth 40-300 ft Sonar Klein 5400 

Launch and Recovery RHIB assisted crane Resolution 3" x 3" 

Environmental Data 

Gathering 

Bathymetry 

Conductivity/Temperature/Depth 

Optical Backscatter 

Swath 150 m w 8% nadir gap 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 139 

C.2.1.2 Littoral Battlespace Sensing – Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (LBSAUV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 12 Vehicles planned (2 vehicles + support equipment 

per system) 

Status: POR; Milestone B 17MAR08; SDD Phase Contract Award scheduled for FY2010 

Background: The Littoral Battlespace Sensing – Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (LBS-AUV) is the acquisition 

POR intended to increase the survey footprint of the T-AGS 60 Multi-Mission Survey Ship, as well as allow 

clandestine military surveys to 

be conducted at a greater standoff range, thereby decreasing 

the risk to the ship and crew. 

The LBS-AUV is intended to be 

primarily a COTS acquisition, with the bulk of development costs stemming from integration with the host platform 

(data formats, mission planning systems, and robust launch and recovery) rather than increased capabilities. 

However, the broad range of ocean survey sensor requirements will likely spur battery or power management 

development in order for vendors to meet the demanding 24-hour endurance threshold for the LBS-AUV. Vehicle 

size is NOT specified in either the CDD or Contract Specification. Two possible options are shown above. While a 

lightweight size vehicle may be advantageous for handling and cost reasons, a heavyweight size vehicle may be 

necessary to house the full sensor complement and attain the required endurance. 

Characteristics:

LBS-AUV 

Length TBD Draft/Operating Depth Down to 300m 

Diameter 12-3/4 or 21 in Payload Capacity Ocean Sensors (see below)

Gross Weight TBD Energy Source Rechargeable batteries 

Propulsion Type Propeller driven 

Data Link(s) RF, Iridium, ACOMMs Delivery Platform T-AGS 

Performance:

Endurance >24 hr Maximum/Survey Speeds 10/4 kt 

Maximum Operational 

Depth 500m Launch/Recovery Sea State 8 ft seas 

Sensors Multibeam Bathymetry, Side 

Scan Sonar, CTD, Optical 

Shallow Water Operation Full operation in 10m water 

depth 

Recovery Method Surface 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 140 

C.2.1.3 Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

(UUV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: TBD Systems Planned (2 vehicles and support equipment per system) 

Status: NPOR (Pre-MDAP) 

Background: The Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) UUV acquisition Program of Record (POR) is a 

heavyweight class UUV for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and Craft of Opportunity (COO) to detect buried and 

proud mines with high probability of detection and low false alarm rate. SMCM UUV SDD begins in FY2009 and 

production approval is planned in FY2011. 

Characteristics:

SMCM UUV Increment 3 

Length TBD Operating Depth Classified 

Gross Weight TBD Delivery Platform LCS & COO 

Diameter 1.75 ft Energy Source Lithium ion polymer 

batteries 

Propulsion Type Direct-drive dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance:

Endurance >16 hrs Maximum/Loiter Speeds >3 kt 

Sensor(s) 

Low-frequency broadband synthetic aperture sonar, 

conductivity/temperature/depth, transmissometer, 

current profiler, bottom sediment profiler 

Recovery Method Surface 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 141 

C.2.2 Lightweight Vehicles (LWVs) 

C.2.2.1 Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

(UUV) Increment 1 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC, and Bluefin Robotics 

Inventory: 3 Vehicles (2 REMUS 100s and 1 Bluefin-12) and Support Equipment 

Status: NPOR 

Bluefin-12 Hydroid REMUS 100 

Background: The SMCM UUV Increment 1 is a user-operational evaluation system (UOES) employed by the 

Naval Oceanography Mine Warfare Center (NOMWC) UUV Platoon from MCMs and crafts of opportunity. The 

SMCM UUV Increment 1 is being used to mitigate SMCM UUV program risk and to refine MCM mission tactics, 

ship integration, and the human-system interface. 

The SMCM UUV Increment 1 was successfully employed during various exercises. These vehicles will be retired 

and replaced with Increment 2 systems during FY09. 

Characteristics:

SMCM UUV Increment 1 

Length 5.5 ft (Hydroid) 

9 ft (Bluefin) Operating Depth 10-300 ft 

Gross Weight 110 lb (Hydroid) 

300 lb (Bluefin) Delivery Platform MCM-1 class and crafts of 

opportunity 

Diameter 0.63 ft (Hydroid) 

1.06 ft (Bluefin) Energy Source Lithium batteries 

Propulsion Type Linear-induction dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance:

Endurance 10 hr (Hydroid) 

12 hr (Bluefin) Maximum/Loiter Speeds 3–5 kt 

Sensor(s) 

Marine sonics dual 

frequency real aperture 

sonar, conductivity/ 

temperature/depth 

Recovery Method Surface 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 142 

C.2.2.2 Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

(UUV) Increment 2 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Bluefin Robotics 

Inventory: 3 Systems (2 vehicles per system) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The SMCM UUV Increment 2 is a UOES employed by the Commander, Naval Meteorology and 

Oceanography (CNMOC) UUV Platoon from MCMs and crafts of opportunity. The SMCM UUV Increment 2 is 

being used to mitigate SMCM UUV program risk and to study MCM mission tactics, ship integration, and the 

human-system interface. The performance of the SMCM UUV Increment 2 will be evaluated to determine the 

effectiveness of dual-frequency SAS at detecting buried mines and identifying targets with high-resolution imagery. 

The SMCM UUV Increment 2 will provide high-resolution images at much greater range than the SMCM UUV 

Increment 1. These vehicles will be retired and replaced with SMCM UUV POR. 

Characteristics:

SMCM UUV Increment 2 

Length 11 ft Operating Depth 30–300 ft 

Gross Weight 550 lb Delivery Platform MCM, MHC, and crafts of 

opportunity 

Diameter 1.06 ft Energy Source Lithium ion polymer 

batteries 

Propulsion Type Linear-induction dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance:

Endurance >10 hrs Search/Maximum Transit 

Speed 3–5 kt 

Sensor(s) 

Qinetiq dual-frequency 

synthetic aperture sonar, 

conductivity/temperature/depth, 

transmissometer, current 

profiler 

Recovery Method Surface 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 143 

C.2.3 Man-Portable UUVs 

C.2.3.1 Bottom Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Localization System (BULS) 

User Service: EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC (preliminary operational capability system) and TBD (IOC/FOC system) 

Inventory: 0 Production Systems Delivered/6 Production Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) is part of the “toolbox approach” to equipping EOD 

forces via spiral development of UUVs. It will be capable of detecting and localizing threat objects on the seafloor 

of harbors and open areas and will support MCM operations from 10 to 300 feet. The system is small (two-person 

portable) with a low unit cost so that inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic. It will be deployable via multiple 

platforms and from shore. The program is leveraging a previous, limited-deployment capability UUV and the S-C-M 

UUV program, and it has provided UOES to two operational units for use in tactics development and requirements 

and in specification refinement. Current UOES configuration includes dual-frequency side-scan sonar, enhanced 

navigation (GPS, INS, ultra-short baseline [USBL]), low-light CCD camera, and enhanced acoustic communications 

(ACOMMS). IOC is anticipated in second quarter FY2009, and full operational capability is anticipated for first 

quarter FY2011. Future spirals are envisioned to support more complex capabilities, such as detailed intelligence 

gathering and chemical and biological detection. 

Characteristics (latest UOES configuration): 

BULS 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–300 ft 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb maximum Energy Source 1 kWh Li-ion battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet Frequency (acoustic) 900/1800 kHz sonar, 1200 

kHz DVL 

Performance:

Contact Localization Accuracy ≤ 20 m 

Probability of Detection/Classification ≥ 0.75 (MK 81 size & >), A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.85 w/ 80% confidence factor 

ACR 0.04 nm2/hr 

Net Ready 100% of interfaces designated as critical in BULS integrated architecture 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 144 

C.2.3.2 Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP) – Very Shallow Water 

(VSW) Neutralization 1st Generation – Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

(UUV) – Neutralization (UUV-N) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Atlas Elektronik 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR 

CRRC Deployment 

Craft 

Torpedo GPS 

transit 

Positive identification &

neutralization solution 

obtained with sensors 

•Neutralize 4 bottom contacts per 

sortie in 10 to 40 ft 

•Deploy IAW CATF intentions, all 

detonations completed by H-2 

Background: This effort is intended to field unmanned systems to support the MCM mission at NSCT ONE in 

order to get the Warfighter out of the minefield and to reacquire and neutralize previously identified mines in the 

VSW zone. Tactical integration will be achieved with the S-C-M and R-I UUVs. Concept employs a guided small 

torpedo design with directed energy shape charge neutralizer; reacquisition using forward-looking sonar; and closedcircuit television camera for target prosecution and firing decision. The Defense Acquisition Challenge Program 

(DACP) effort will adapt an airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) neutralizer from current inventory for 

deployment from a small boat. Far-term NSCT ONE requirement for extended station keeping, standoff command 

detonation, and autonomous neutralization will affect ability to use common neutralizer form factor to meet the endstate requirement. An integrated technology development strategy will be initiated between PMS-EOD, PMS 495, 

and ONR to address this issue. IOC is anticipated during third quarter FY2016. 

Characteristics (DACP system):

UUV-N 

System Size TBD Operating Depth 10–40 FSW 

System Weight TBD (2-person portable) Energy Source Li-polymer battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy TBD Delivery Platform Various small boat 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller 

Data Link Fiber optic tether Frequency (acoustic) 675/975 kHz sonar 

Performance:

Neutralization Effectiveness 0.72 Availability 0.85 

Reliability 0.90 Target Types Bottom influence mines 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 145 

C.2.3.3 Hull Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Localization System (HULS) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 0 Systems Delivered/7–15 Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Hull UUV LS (HULS) will be a relatively low-cost, two-person portable system with a small 

shipboard logistic footprint and will be capable of being deployed and recovered from a small boat and from shore. 

The program will leverage a previous Defense Acquisition Challenge Program and limited-deployment capability 

effort as well as developmental programs by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Carderock Division. The purpose of HULS is to decrease the operational timeline and reduce personnel 

hazards associated with searching ship hulls, piers, pilings, and other underwater structures. It will be interoperable 

with the diver hull inspection navigation system. A competitive acquisition of a prototype first-generation system is 

currently in process. IOC is planned for FY2012. A spiral acquisition process for successively adding capability is 

planned over ensuing years. Long-term, end-state capability is envisioned to support both search and in-situ 

neutralization of limpet mines and underwater improvised explosive devices (IEDs). 

Characteristics (anticipated IOC system):

HULS 

Vehicle Size TBD Operating Depth Surface to 200 ft 

Vehicle Weight 100 lb maximum Energy Source TBD 

Vehicle Displacement TBD Delivery Platform Various small boats and shore

Propulsion Type TBD 

Data Link TBD Frequency (acoustic) TBD 

Performance (anticipated IOC system): 

Probability of Detection  0.85 @ 80% confidence (9 in diameter × 4.5 in high cylinder) 

Probability of Classification/ Identification  0.85 @ 80% confidence (9 in diameter × 4.5 in high cylinder) 

Contact Localization Accuracy 3 ft SEP 

Hull Search Rate 398 ft2/min 

Reliability 0.90 @ 80% confidence 

Availability 90% 

Maintainability 5 hr MCMTOMF 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 146 

C.2.3.4 MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH) Search-Classify-Map (S-C-M) Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle (UUV) 

User Service: Naval Special Clearance Team ONE (NSCT ONE)/EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC 

Inventory: 3 Systems Delivered (NSCT ONE)/6 Systems Planned (EOD) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The MK 18 MOD 1 SWORDFISH is part of the “toolbox approach” to equipping Naval Special 

Clearance Team (NSCT) ONE and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) forces. It is capable of performing lowvisible exploration and reconnaissance in support of amphibious landing, MCM operations, and hydrographic 

mapping in the very shallow water (VSW) zone (10 to 40 feet of seawater (FSW)) and the seaward approaches. It is 

small (two-person portable), has a low unit cost (so that inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic), and is 

deliverable via multiple platforms. The production decision was reached 27 July 2005. Initial Operational Capability 

(IOC) was reached in January 2007 following the first article test in December 2006. Full operational capability was 

reached in May 2007, following delivery of the second and third of three systems to NSCT ONE. Additional 

systems will be used to establish a preliminary operational capability and for evaluation of Outside the Continental 

United States (OCONUS) supportability at EOD units. It is capable of navigating via acoustic transponders in longbaseline or ultra-short-baseline mode or via P coded global positioning system (GPS). Upward- and downwardlooking acoustic digital velocity log improves dead-reckoning accuracy. Onboard sensors include water turbidity, 

water temperature and conductivity, side-scan sonar, and downward-looking camera. 

Characteristics:

MK 18 MOD 1 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–40 FSW (300 ft 

maximum) 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb maximum Energy Source 1 kWh Li-ion battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet Frequency (acoustic) 900 kHz sonar, 1200 kHz 

DVL 

Performance:

Contact Localization Accuracy 49 ft 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Mines as Mine-like 0.80 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Non-mine-like as Mine-like 0.20 @ A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.80 

Interoperability 100% of top-level IERs designated critical 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 147 

C.2.3.5 Littoral Battlespace Sensing – Glider (LBS-Glider) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 150 vehicles planned 

Status: POR; Milestone B 17MAR08; 

SDD Phase Contract Award scheduled late 

FY2008 

Background: The LBS-Glider will 

enhance the Joint Force Maritime 

Component Commander’s (JFMCC’s) 

awareness of the ocean environment 

through a wide-area, long-endurance 

sensing capability that replaces the need for 

employment of tactical assets. A persistent 

baseline presence of LBS-Gliders will enable environmental awareness on a continual basis, and rapid deployment 

of reserve assets will increase the speed and accuracy of the Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) process in 

contingencies. 

Glider technology is widely employed among academia (picture above is only one of at least 4 models), and the 

ONR and Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) have been purchasing gliders for concept refinement and 

funding of risk mitigation efforts. The LBS-Glider is therefore intended to be primarily a COTS acquisition, with the 

bulk of development costs stemming from integration with the host platforms (data formats, mission planning 

systems, and robust launch and recovery) rather than capability enhancement. The wide range of operating 

environments that the LBS-Gliders are expected to operate in may require more than one variant (TBD). 

Characteristics:

LBS-Glider 

Length 6-8 ft Dive Depth 10-1000 m 

Diameter 8-12 in Payload Capacity Sensors 

Gross Weight 2-person portable Energy Source Lithium primary/LiON 

rechargeable 

Propulsion Type Buoyancy Engine 

Data Link(s) Iridium SATCOM Delivery Platform Surface platforms 

Performance:

Endurance 30-180 days Maximum/Loiter Speeds 8/3 kt 

Maximum Operational Depth 1500 ft Recovery Sea State 8 ft seas 

Sensor(s) CTD, Optical, Ambient 

Noise Recovery Method Surface 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 148 

C.2.3.6 Reacquisition-Identification (R-I) Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) 

User Service: NSCT ONE/EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC 

Inventory: 0 Systems Delivered/3 Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Potentially a variant of the MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH), the Reacquisition-Identification (R-I) 

UUV will be modified to provide higher resolution imagery than the SWORDFISH system currently fielded for the 

S-C-M mission. The R I UUV will provide the capability to perform mine reacquisition, limited area search, and 

mine identification to a high level of confidence, in support of amphibious landings, MCM operations, and 

hydrographic mapping in the VSW zone (10 to 40 FSW). The system will remain a small, two-person portable 

vehicle with relatively low cost so that inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic. The R-I UUV will be 

interoperable with the S-C-M UUV, MK 8 Marine Mammal System, and Underwater Imaging System. Formal mine 

warfare tactics to address non-optic-based mine identification will be developed. A new generation dual-frequency 

(900/1800 kHz) side-scan sonar is being evaluated for potential to reach R-I capability. 

Characteristics:

R-I UUV 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–40 FSW 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb (2-person portable) Energy Source Li-polymer battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet Frequency (acoustic) TBD900/1800 kHz sonar 

1200 kHz DVL 

Performance:

Probability of Reacquiring and Identifying Mines ≥ 0.85 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Identifying Mines as Mines and Non-mines as Nonmines ≥ 0.80 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Non-mine-like as Mine-like ≤ 0.2 @ A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.90 (80% confidence factor) 

Interoperability 100% of top-level IERs designated critical
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 149 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 150 

APPENDIX D. TECHNOLOGY ENABLER DATA SHEETS

D.1 3D World Modeling 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: 3D world modeling for either navigation/mission planning or manipulation (but 

not both, since they are at different resolutions and using different techniques for representation). This includes 

outdoor and indoor models but is not referenced to each. Models are of sufficient resolution to perform 

navigation, planning and manipulation tasks and are textured with color images. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Enough resolution and accuracy to enable autonomous robot navigation or remote 

teleoperation. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: For industrial manipulation in fixed environments: TRL 9 currently: 

 For UAS: FY09 - TRL 8-9 

 For UGVs: FY09 - TRL 4-6; FY10 - TRL 5-7; FY11 - TRL 6-8 

D.2 Active Signature Management 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would support actively managing RF signature in 

response to environmental queues. Signature management might be through shape/form shifting, deceptive 

radio frequency (RF) emissions, or other technologies. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Ingress and egress undetected from low, medium, and high-threat environments 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 1; 2034 - TRL 6 

D.3 Architecture Proprietary 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Continue to develop and refine interface architectures and standards defining the 

format and content of information (e.g. messages) passing between unmanned systems elements. 

B. Capability Supported: All JCAs, including Force Application, Command & Control, Battlespace Awareness, 

Net-Centric, Building Partnerships, Protection, Force Support, Logistics, and Corporate Mgmt & Support. 

C. Performance Attributes: As a message standard, JAUS does not have a measurable performance. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: To date, FCS (all UAS and UGV), USSV, AEODRS, 

MTRS, Gladiator TUGV, ARTS. 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: The current architecture (JAUS) is used in systems today. The TRL of 

any developments and/or refinements of existing or future architectures is TBD. 

D.4 Artificial Muscle Systems 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop actuation technologies based conceptually on human muscle that 

provide high actuation forces, compliance, and integrated force and strain sensing. The actuators would be used 

as the foundation of high performance anthropomorphic mobility and manipulation systems for UGVs. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: High actuation forces and speeds; integrated force and strain sensing; multiple 

degrees of freedom of motion; integrated and robust control electronics; scalable 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 151 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 3 

D.5 Automatically Deployed Communication Relays 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: RF relay “bricks” are automatically launched from a moving ground robot where 

needed to extend the link between the robot and its remote control station. The robot, control station, and relay 

nodes form a mesh network. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness, Net-Centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Bandwidth capable of carrying two real-time video channels. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: MTRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 7; FY10 - TRL 8; FY11 - TRL 9 

D.6 Autonomous Robotic Capability Suite (ARCS) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Autonomous Robotic Capability Suite (ARCS) program addresses a USA 

Engineering requirement to provide a multifunctional robotic capability using fielded small robotic systems 

while demonstrating system collaboration. Today’s robots cannot adaptively seek, automatically map or provide 

the dexterity or mobility to address complex hazards. The overarching goal of the ARCS effort is to provide 

intelligent, mission centric payloads that transform existing robots into effective threat identification, 

characterization, and mapping systems. The ARCS program will develop plug and play payloads for multiple 

missions (e.g., CBRN, IED, and human detection). 

For an initial use case, ARCS will focus on the need to search for, detect, and mark different types of buried 

landmines in various terrains with flexible autonomy by developing portable, reconfigurable unmanned system 

behaviors. After the initial experiment, to be completed in FY08, ARCS will expand the behaviors developed 

for countermine to other Maneuver and Maneuver Support functions. So far, chemical detection, radiological 

assessment and explosive hazard detection have also been demonstrated in addition to the countermine mission. 

These behaviors are implemented on small unmanned ground vehicles integrating robust mission-centric 

payloads as well as sensors for navigation, mapping, path planning and obstacle avoidance. Under the ARCS 

project, several platforms have been selected to demonstrate robotic countermine and CBRN capability 

including two fielded robotic systems. It is the intent of this program to develop behaviors plug and played on 

other unmanned systems with minor configuration changes. This program will consist of two demonstrations 

and one final experiment designed to leverage off maturing work and will ensure developed behaviors can fit 

well within, and benefit from, a larger system of systems. 

B. Capability Supported (Payoff): This applies to command and control, force support, and protection. 

Support of JGR Technology Matrix: 

 Interface Technologies: Organic tasking tools such as hand-held controllers for proximal interaction on the 

move to task manage and control multiple UAS and UGVs to collaboratively conduct specified missions. 

 Autonomous Technologies: Provides small-scale, inexpensive autonomy payloads imbedded with sensor 

based tactical behaviors to achieve collaborative threat seeking capabilities. 

 Sensors-Perception for UAS and UGV navigation, collaborative behaviors and explosive hazard detection. 

 Seamless positioning for UAS and UGV navigation, such that UAS and UGVs can support one another in 

the case of communications and positioning failures 

 Path Planning for the UAS to UGV to plan and execute a path to a sensor designated point on the ground. 

 Local common operating picture tools that use common reference points and environmental features to 

support mission planning. 

 Cooperative behaviors to search for, detect, report and mark CM and CBRN and explosive hazards. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 152 

 Enhancement to the INL’s RIK: (a) common behavior architecture for unmanned ground vehicles 

developed by the DOE’s INL and (b) a multi-robot mission planning and tasking architecture developed by 

the SPAWAR. 

 Interoperability: ARCS benefits from a high level of interoperability between the search UAS and the 

search and detect small UGVs. In addition, the program requires advanced interoperability between the 

unmanned systems payloads and the sensors to affect tactical behaviors. All behaviors will be developed to 

be portable and reconfigurable so that they can be used on multiple ground vehicles. The behaviors 

involved in this program have already been ported and demonstrated on 20 unique robotic systems. 

Joint Interest: This experiment will bring together multi-agency advanced technologies to include: 

 Advanced countermine sensor technology developed by the NVESD, Fort Belvoir, VA 

 Integrated marking system from SPAWAR, San Diego 

 Adjustable autonomy behaviors for navigation, coverage from INL to enable countermine tactical behavior 

robots 

 Payload development and support from Program Manager Countermine and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(PM CM&EOD), Fort Belvoir, VA 

 Payload development from selected vendor(s) 

 Small UAS from INL with semi-autonomous capabilities and sensors 

C. Performance Attributes: Collaborative unmanned systems behaviors; ability to search for, detect and mark 

different types of buried landmines in various terrain; guarded motion and obstacle avoidance; mapping and 

localization; waypoint navigation and path planning; mine detection; mine avoidance; mine marking; ability to 

conduct semi-autonomous countermine operation. 

D. Current or future acquisition program(s) supported: PM CM&EOD – development of a countermine 

payload specific to unmanned systems, using the ARCS RIK as the behavioral package to operate the payload. 

Technology Transfer Agreements are in draft in order to ensure that the integrated packages from the ARCS 

efforts are utilized by emerging CDDs and CPDs. The Robotic Tool Kit ICD (draft) from USAIC specifically 

references the data and capabilities from ARCS as a developmental need for the Tool Kit concept. 

 Countermine Mobility Marking Autonomy and Detection (CMMAD); PM CM&EOD 

 Autonomous Mine Detection System (AMDS) CPD; MANSCEN, Ft. Leonard-Wood 

 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) Block 1 CPD; USAIC, Ft. Benning 

 Robotics Tool Kit ICD (Draft); USAIC, Ft. Benning 

D.7 Battery Powered - Long Endurance Power Source for Small UGVs 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to advance power and energy densities and integrate 

advanced batteries into ground vehicles and unmanned systems. 

B. Capability Supported: Applicable to the following JCAs: Force Application and Corporate Mgt & Spt 

C. Performance Attributes: The Performance attributes include limited, expanded, and all weather environmental 

difficulty, understanding autonomous mobility, increased mission endurance in terms of weeks and months 

versus hours and days, survivability, speed, and maneuverability. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: FCS, JLTV, Small Unmanned Vehicles, CMPS, 

LUV 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TRL 6, MRL 8 by FY10 

D.8 Battlefield Extraction – Assist Robot (BEAR) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: A highly agile and powerful mobile robot capable of lifting and carrying an 

injured human out of harm’s way is being built and tested. A 2-phase research effort is being conducted with 

two successive prototypes being built. Completed in 2005, the Phase I research and design phase resulted in an 

initial design laboratory prototype being built on a 2-wheeled Segway base. The subsequent robot prototype 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 153 

uses a hybrid wheeled/tracked base with a Segway-type gyro balance system. The gyro system and variablegeometry hybrid base give the robot a high degree of mobility over rough, uneven terrain and dynamic 

balancing behaviors for high-speed mobility when speed is needed. The mobility base is tightly integrated with 

a powerful but sensitive upper body with arms, capable of gently cradling a load of up to 500 lbs. 

Lab prototype demos 1, 2, and 3 Operational Prototypes 1 and 2 

Phase II is focused on development of an operational prototype for operational testing. The Phase II BEAR 

prototype is composed of a mobility base tightly integrated with a powerful but sensitive upper body with arms. 

The Phase II BEAR prototype has been further enhanced by adding separately articulated tracked “legs. The 

track array will be segmented in two places allowing the robot to tilt forward or backward to maintain a low 

profile on the battlefield, bend down on it “knees” to pick up a casualty, or all the way into a prone position to 

pick up and carry a casualty maintaining a low profile (low crawl position). As a system, the prototype has 

demonstrated the ability to navigate while in a tucked posture or lying down to minimize exposure to gunfire. 

Further, the prototype can carry a casualty in these postures, minimizing the potential for additional injury to the 

casualty during the casualty extraction operation. When conditions permit, the prototype has demonstrated the 

ability to travel at high speed in a fully erect posture with and without a casualty. Also, the prototype can scale 

stairs and negotiate the narrow passages common to urban warfare. A mechanical and electrical interface which 

will allow the BEAR to be carried on the exterior of military vehicles, allowing the BEAR to be present and 

ready when needed has also been completed and is being tested. 

Additionally, prototype testing has highlighted the need for an extension to the JAUS standard to accommodate 

a machine as complex as the BEAR. The completed robot system will be JAUS compliant. Since the design 

features a torso and arms that use a unique hydraulic system that can lift and carry its cargo or “passengers” 

safely and effectively up to 500 pounds, it could be leveraged for logistic support missions as well as medical 

missions. MRMC TATRC is also collaborating with the Army Research Lab (ARL) to develop a JAUS enabled 

universal soldier/operator control unit (OCU) for use with multiple robots and UGVS. Four user-friendly OCUs 

have been developed and are being adapted under an SBIR Phase II Plus grant from TATRC and ARO to apply 

the OCUs to other USAMRMC TATRC robots such as the BEAR: 

 Isometric Controller Grip (IGC) mounted on the front of an M4 rifle to control robots with rifle in ready 

position 

 Instrumented Glove (iGlove) Tactile glove robot controller (can use hand and arm signals as do small unit 

infantry leaders) 

 Tactile Armband and Belt (for feedback to operator) 

 3D Viewer (this one was in the March 2006 issue of Popular Science magazine 

B. Capability Supported: Force Support, Logistics, Protection, Battlespace Awareness, and Command and 

Control. 

C. Performance Attributes: Lift and carry 300 – 500 lbs.; Safely lift, carry and extract a casualty; Scale stairs and 

negotiate narrow passages, and navigate moderately rough terrain (basically go wherever a soldier goes); 

Sufficient speed to keep up with a dismounted patrol; Endurance of at least four hours; Wireless teleoperation; 

Capable of silent operations. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Future Combat System, UAS for Air Cargo Delivery, 

USSOCOM Autonomous Expeditionary Support Program, MULE, Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot 

(BCER) Project. 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 6; FY10 – TRL 6; FY11- TRL 7; FY12 - TRL 7; FY13 – 

TRL 8; FY14 – TRL 9 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 154 

D.9 Bio-mass Reactor Power 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to support bio-mass reactors to provide electrical power. 

The ability to use bio-mass would allow an unmanned system to increase its mission endurance and increase its 

covert advantages by “living off the land.” The ideal bio-mass reactor would allow the unmanned systems to 

convert prepared food stuffs as well as raw foods and natural bio-mass. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships, Force Application, Force Support, 

Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Mission endurance in months 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 2; 2034 – TRL 6 

D.10 Biomimetic Human Detection 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Human detection based on emulation of biological sensors, including visual, 

aural, and olfactory. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Detection of humans as well as a dog can. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.11 BioRobotics 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The BioRobotics (formerly Biodynotics) program will increase the capabilities 

of military robots by applying dynamics and control based on biological inspired models. A specific objective is 

to develop and transition a tetrapod robot that can carry loads in the tactical environment. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application – Maneuver 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual System; Spectrum Independent – Frequency Hopping; Obstacle 

Avoidance; Operation in Expanded Environmental Difficulty; Product Line Independent; OPSEC – Signature 

Low; Operational Control ratio of 1:1 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: None 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2008 – TRL 6 

D.12 Bird Dog/Warfighter’s Associate 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The robot will possess empathy with the human operator, and will be able to take 

high-level commands from the operator much as a bird dog does from the hunter. Commands may be verbal or 

by hand gestures. The robot will be aware of its environment and the operator’s mental and physiological status, 

and uses these cues to assist its interpretation of the verbal and gesture commands. The robot acts more like a 

partner or associate of the Warfighter. Sensor outputs from Future Force Warrior technologies will contribute 

much to the robot’s awareness. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Environmental awareness; Human detection and tracking 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Future Force Warrior 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 155 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 4; FY10 - TRL 5; FY12 - TRL 7; FY15 – TRL 8 

D.13 CENTAUR Ground Mobility System 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: CENTAUR Ground Mobility System is a concept and technology feasibility 

effort to integrate the Battlefield Extraction – Assist Robot (BEAR) head (including sensors) and upper torso, 

and the BIG DOG quadruped robot. CENTAUR combines the best attributes of each system: BEAR – Sensors 

and Upper Torso Flexibility, Maneuverability, Grasping and Strength; and BIG DOG – Mobility over various 

terrains, including rough terrain. 

CENTAUR Components: Big Dog Quadruped Robot & BEAR Head and Upper Torso 

B. Capability Supported: Force Support, Logistics, Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, & 

Command and Control 

C. Performance Attributes: Initially teleoperation (wireless), but the object systems should be autonomous; Lift 

and carry 300 – 500 lbs.; Safely lift, carry and extract a casualty; Scale stairs and negotiate narrow passages, 

and navigate rough terrain (basically go wherever a soldier goes); Sufficient speed to keep up with a 

dismounted patrol; Endurance of at least four hours; Capable of silent operations. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Programs Supported: Future Combat System, Maritime Force 2025, UAS for 

Air Cargo Delivery, USSOCOM Autonomous Expeditionary Support Program (AESP), Battlefield Casualty 

Extraction Robot (BCER) Project 

E. Technology Readiness Levels By Year: FY09 - TRL 4; FY10 - TRL 5; FY11 - TRL 5; FY12 - TRL 6; FY13 - 

TRL 6; FY14 - TRL 7 

D.14 Chemical Robots (ChemBots) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Chemical Robots (ChemBots) program is developing soft, flexible, mobile 

objects that can identify and maneuver through openings smaller than their static structural dimensions and 

restore their size, shape, and functionality afterwards; carry meaningful payloads; and perform tasks. ChemBots 

represent the convergence of soft materials chemistry and robotics to create a fundamentally new class of soft, 

meso-scale robots. 

B. Capability Supported (Payoff): Force Application, Battlespace Awareness, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Adaptive Tactical Behaviors, Expanded Environmental Difficulty, Mission 

Endurance in days 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 3; FY10 – TRL 4; FY11 – TRL 6; FY12 – TRL 7 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 156 

D.15 Collaborative Networked Autonomous Vehicles (CNAV) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Collaborative Networked Autonomous Vehicles (CNAV) program will 

create a field of dozens or hundreds of networked unmanned undersea vehicles, connected by wireless acoustic 

communications, that will work collaboratively and autonomously to detect, classify, and localize target 

vehicles transiting the field. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Command and Control, Battlespace Awareness, and Net-Centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Mission Endurance in Weeks; Operational Control 1:# within Domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: OPNAV-N87 and NAVSEA (PEO-IWS) 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 - TRL 6 

D.16 Communications/Navigation Network Node (CN3) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) can serve as critical communication and 

navigation links between various platforms—at sea, on shore, even into the air and space realms. As with the 

other missions, they can be operated from a variety of platforms, at long standoff distances, and for extended 

periods of time. A small vehicle can function as an information conduit between a subsea platform and an array, 

or it can clandestinely come to the surface and provide a discreet antenna. As an aid to navigation, UUVs can 

serve as stand-by buoys, positioning themselves at designated locations and popping to the surface to provide 

visual or other references for military maneuvers or other operations. UUVs can also provide the link between 

subsurface platforms and GPS or other navigation system, without exposing the platform to unnecessary risk. 

Prepositioned beacons could be placed to provide navigational references in circumstances where conventional 

means are not available or desirable for use. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Net-centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Bandwidth; Teaming Within Domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.17 Complex Terrain Mobility 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would support mobility across complex terrain. These 

technologies include navigation as well as physical drive-train, chassis and suspension technologies. Some of 

the technologies to be explored, developed and refined include but are not limited to the following: full and 

semi- autonomy technologies, better waypoint navigation technologies, follow-me technologies, enhanced 

teleoperation technologies, voice command, UAS collaborative behaviors as well as hybrid electrical drive 

systems, advanced suspension systems and lightweight chassis technologies. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Logistics, Protection, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Enhanced maneuverability; efficient voice control: RSTA & survey; endurance; 

speed; collaboration. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: FCS MULE 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 5; FY10 - TRL 6; FY11 - TRL 7 

D.18 Constrained Radio Frequency (RF) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: For UGVs, develop robust RF system that is resistant to EMI and provide very 

low latency and high data rate communications for teleoperated systems. This system will operate in fixed, 

approved frequency bands coordinated through the Joint Spectrum Center and Combatant Command (COCOM) 

frequency managers. It is anticipated that this system will utilize existing wireless technologies; appropriately 

integrated. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 157 

C. Performance Attributes: Robust performance in environments with EMI. Robust Line of Sight (LOS) 

performance in urban environments out to 1 km. Specific RF performance attributes will vary by system but for 

most applications will include: high data rates (<3 Mb/s), low-latency (<200 ms) video and command and 

control data transmission including time for encoding and decoding digital video and encryption/decryption. 

System should support secure transmission of classified and unclassified data. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: MTRS, AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 4; FY10 - TRL 5; FY11 - TRL 6; FY12 - TRL 8; FY 13 - 

TRL 9 

D.19 Cooperative Multi-Vehicle Road Network Search 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: This system consists of multiple autonomous UAS that modify their search paths 

in cooperation with other airborne platforms to provide Warfighters with a hands-off airborne surveillance 

network that adjusts search patterns based on number of airborne assets and movement of blue-forces on the 

ground. In field experiments up to 6 unmanned vehicles have provided this cooperative ISR capability 

demonstrating autonomous road network searching and asset protection. These vehicles autonomously 

perceived their environment through IR, EO, and on-board communications payloads. In addition to this 

hardware experimentation, the algorithms used for distributed multi-vehicle control have successfully controlled 

over 200 vehicles in simulation-based experiments. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Teaming within Domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.20 Covert & Self-concealing Behaviors 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to enable robotic systems to autonomously enact covert 

and self-concealing behaviors. These behaviors will take advantage of terrain, structure, and environmental 

features to allow the robotic system to conceal itself and minimize its signatures. The behaviors will consider 

the signature vulnerabilities of planned routes to select the routes that minimize its exposure. The behaviors will 

also control and monitor the actions of the system to maximize its covert posture. This may be accomplished 

through gait and configuration changes to allow the system to maneuver close to the ground or up against 

structure. Other possible behaviors include random maneuvering and using features as concealment. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Autonomous Adaptive Tactical Behaviors, All-Weather Environmental Difficulty, 

Operations Security (OPSEC) – Signature Low, Multi-Frequency Communications, Autonomous Bandwidth, 

Fully Autonomous Situational Awareness 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 4, 2024 – TRL 6 

D.21 Electromechanical/Hydraulic 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would provide ground robotic vehicles with an 

enhanced electromechanical/hydraulic capability. These technologies would be applied to increase lift 

capabilities for extended arms as well as the ability to open doors. 

B. Capability Supported: All applicable Tier 1 JCAs 

C. Performance Attributes: Increased lift weight; safe operation of heavy doors at side and front slopes. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 158 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.22 Extreme Weather Capable (Sensors, Electro-mechanical) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: UUV and USV systems must be able to adapt to foul weather, under tropical or 

arctic conditions, and all sea states round the clock. Operating with most or all of its volume below the surface, 

the semi-submersible and submersible designs exhibit lower drag and platform motion than conventional hull 

designs. Limiting platform motion provides advantages in depth control, communications performance, and 

navigation accuracy. Specific efforts to address weather related environment concerns include improve sensor 

technology for vessel depth and motion and improved electro- mechanical technology for vessel control and 

mast-antenna functionality within a confined volume. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Sensor accuracy, mechanical quieting (minimal acoustic signature), advanced control 

logic. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: All classes of UUVs/USVs 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.23 Front End Robotics Enabling Near-Term Demonstration (FREND) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The goal of the Front End Robotics Enabling Near-Term Demonstration 

(FREND) program is to develop, demonstrate, and fly critical technologies for a space servicing vehicle 

designed to increase the survivability and operational effectiveness of geosynchronous-orbit-based military and 

commercial spacecraft. The FREND program will culminate in a flight version of the spacecraft’s robotic “front 

end.” FREND will demonstrate autonomous grappling with a variety of spacecraft configurations, multi-arm 

coordination, a comprehensive sensing and computing suite, and compatibility with the space environment. 

FREND is intended to operate with “unprepared” spacecraft, satellites that have no optical targets or servicing 

equipment of any kind. 

B. Capability Supported: Command and Control, Battlespace Awareness, Net-Centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Teaming within domain; Mission Endurance in days; Route Planning; Obstacle 

Avoidance; Adaptive Tactical Behaviors; OPSEC – Signature Low; Operational Control 1:1 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2011 - TRL 7 

D.24 Heterogeneous Airborne Reconnaissance Team (HART) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Heterogeneous Airborne Reconnaissance Team (HART) (formerly known 

as HURT) initiative is developing integrated tactical planning and sensor management systems for 

heterogeneous collections of manned and unmanned platforms operating in multiple tactical environments. 

HART coordinates reconnaissance and surveillance assets in order to provide a tactical information service to 

dismounted Warfighters. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness – ISR 

C. Performance Attributes: Operational Control 1:# within Domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 - Level 6 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 159 

D.25 Hierarchical Collaborative Behaviors 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The human commander will be able to control a group of heterogeneous robots 

through a smart “squad leader” robot. The lead robot takes high-level plans and goals from the human 

commander, then formulates the detailed plans, tasks, and monitors other more specialized robots to perform the 

work. The specialized robots would have varying capabilities and mobility modalities, e.g., wall climbing, 

flying, ground traversing, underwater swimming, and various modes of manipulation, etc. The lead robot uses 

its processing power to assume the work of a large number of individual robot operators. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Autonomous mission planning; Natural language interface; Robotic empathy 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.26 High Speed Intelligent Networked Communications 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Unmanned systems will be networked using the Global Information Grid (GIG). 

Intelligent routing algorithms will make decision on a per packet basis, using information on the energy 

required and the quality of service (QOS) possible. RF networked communications will use universal, flexible 

radios that can talk to each other using different protocols and frequencies, depending on the current local 

environment. Protocol and frequency resolution is performed automatically. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness, Net-Centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Flexible frequency hopping; Energy aware/efficient routing 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: GIG 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY34 - TRL 9 

D.27 Highly Representative World Model 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to enable robotic systems to perceive, store, and 

communicate characteristics of all encountered entities in the world in qualitative and abstract terms. The 

current state of the art relies mainly on quantitative measures describing objects by their geometric features and 

measurements. While this approach has great merits for tasks, such as navigation or targeting, it is not useful for 

providing rich and detailed assessments of the state of objects in the world or evaluating the context of 

situations. The ability to describe the world in qualitative terms becomes more critical as robotic systems 

increase in autonomy levels and become more interactive with humans. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships, Corporate Management and Support, 

Force Application, Force Support, Logistics, Net-Centric, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Natural Language Understanding; Autonomous Adaptive Tactical Behaviors; Fully 

Autonomous Situational Awareness 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 2; 2028 – TRL 6 

D.28 Human Detection on the Move 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: More advanced human detection based on a number of emerging technologies, 

including skin detection, ladar, microwave, and visual sensors. Tracking methods may be used. Detection is 

performed from a moving platform in complex environments. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 160 

C. Performance Attributes: Detection from a platform moving at application-appropriate speed. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 3-4; FY11 – TRL 5; FY13 - TRL 6; FY15 - TRL 7 

D.29 Human-Like Dexterity 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Current EOD UGVs have demonstrated their usefulness in providing remote 

surveillance, inspection, imaging, and manipulation capabilities to the modern Warfighter. While these UGVs 

have been designed to withstand the rigors of in-theatre operation and optimized to enhance rapid deployment 

and portability, serious limitations remain with respect to the level of manipulator dexterity available. Joint 

EOD forces have long had a need for robotic manipulators with the fidelity and dexterity of the human arm and 

hand, but until recently the cost and technical risk associated with fulfilling this need were unacceptably high. 

Based upon ongoing 6.2 work and technology surveillance in this area, a cost-effective and highly dexterous 

mobile EOD manipulator should be able to be fielded within the next four to five years. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Manipulator/end effector dexterity and tactility equal to or greater than that of a 

human. Minimal latency when being teleoperated to minimize burden on operator. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY10 – TRL 5; FY12 – TRL 6; FY14 – TRL 7 

D.30 Hybrid Bio-mechanical Systems 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to support hybrid bio-mechanical actuators, manipulators, 

and propulsive limbs. Biological limbs, grasping digits, and torso elements provide superior performance in 

power economy, range of motion, and noise signature compared to hydraulic, pneumatic, and electricalmechanical actuation systems. Biological-only systems generally cannot achieve the same level of total power 

and force that a mechanical system can. A hybrid bio-mechanical system would have the benefits of both with 

high power economy, superior range of motion, very low noise signature, and high total force. Technologies are 

required that can grow the biological elements, graft them to mechanical components, provide power to them, 

and control them. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships, Corporate Management and Support, 

Force Application, Force Support, Logistics, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: OPSEC – Signature Low 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 2; 2028 – TRL 6 

D.31 Intelligent Frequency Selecting Radio Frequency (RF) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop and field frequency agile radio systems for UGVs that utilize next 

generation wireless technologies being developed by DARPA, Department of Defense (DoD) labs, and the 

commercial sector. This system will be able to actively determine where in the frequency spectrum to operate to 

avoid electromagnetic interference and Blue Force communications fratricide and enable optimal RF 

performance and propagation. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Robust performance in environments with EMI; robust LOS and Non Line of Sight 

(NLOS) performance in urban environments to 2 km and beyond; robust performance inside buildings; 

intelligent power management to maximum UGV endurance; intelligent frequency selection to avoid 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 161 

interference. Specific RF performance attributes will vary by system but for most applications will include: high 

data rates (<3 Mb/s); low-latency (<200 ms) video and command and control data transmission including time 

for encoding and decoding digital video and encryption/decryption; secure transmission of classified and 

unclassified data. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: MTRS and AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 5; FY10 - TRL 6; FY11 - TRL 6; FY12 - TRL 6; FY13 - 

TRL 7; FY14 - TRL 8; FY15 - TRL 9 

D.32 Intelligent Mobile Grenade 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Intelligent Mobile Grenade system will be a Mobile Throwable Robotic 

platform that provides video and audio capability along with a blast fragmentation capability. This system will 

likely be on a Throwbot sized platform and will contain a small amount of IM-compliant explosive inside of the 

robotic case that will be precisely scored to provide the required fragmentation pattern. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: TBD 

D. Current or future acquisition program(s) supported. (Joint Service Participation/Interest): TBD 

D.33 Joint Convoy Active Safety System (JCASS) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Joint Convoy Active Safety System (JCASS) plans to leverage current S&T 

convoy technologies to drive a Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration (JCTD), facilitating an Outside the 

Continental United States (OCONUS) Military Utility Assessment (MUA) and eventual POR. 

B. Capability Supported: Providing convoy protection through drive-by-wire design and turnkey user interface 

for tactical wheeled vehicles. 

C. Performance Attributes: Operator interventions (day & night) 1 per 100 hours; System Operations Range 

day & night) 100m; Speed (day & night) 80kph; Lateral accuracy (day & night) 100cm; Obstacle Avoidance (day & 

night) 500cm3

 object; Vehicle Separations (day & night) 100m ; Situational awareness (day & night) Target sighting 

increase 25%; Emergency breaking (day & night) Driver interventions performed per hour: 0; Rear end collisions: 0; 

Multi – vehicle convoy capability Number of vehicles: scalable; Leader/Follower role swapping Transition time: ≤

10 seconds; Low system kit cost: 15% of vehicle cost; Vehicle – independent hardware 75%/90% commonality 

D. Current or future acquisition program(s) supported. (Joint Service Participation/Interest): 

 Transition Management with RS-JPO 

 Operational Management with CASCOM 

 Technology Management with RDECOM 

 Partnership with CASCOM Sustainment Battle Lab as user representation & MOE/MOP 

development/utility monitoring 

 Partnership with AFRL for technology collaboration/development 

D.34 Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Networked Communications 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Communication networks will be based on the Joint Tactical Radio System 

(JTRS) Wideband Network Waveform (WNW) for DoD applications. Some 802.16 technologies will also be 

adopted as appropriate. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness, Net-Centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Secure communications. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 162 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY15 - TRL 9 

D.35 Ku MiniTCDL for STUAS/Tier II 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: This effort provides additional United States Navy (USN) funds to the current 

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Mini Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) effort. The objective of the 

Navy-funded portion is to pursue a lightweight, efficient Ku transceiver and directional antenna. The AFRL’s 

original effort addressed the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) mandate for small, Ku TCDL for 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (>30 lbs TOGW). The AFRL MiniTCDL program has demonstrated two 

different miniaturized TCDL modems, validating the feasibility of meeting the TCDL requirement. The AFRL 

program intends to mature the MiniTCDL to a production ready level in the FY10 time frame. Current 

Technology Readiness Levels are below 6 for systems needed to meet the STUAS//Tier II 50nm range 

requirement. Therefore, the Ku-TCDL requirement for STUAS/Tier II is an objective. PMA-263/Naval Air 

Warfare Center (NAWC) is providing funding to the AFRL to ensure that a suitable technological solution will 

be available for the Block Upgrade phase. Government and industry experts believe maturing both directional 

antennas and small efficient transceivers is necessary to meet the objective STUAS/Tier II requirement. 

Industry responses to a November 2006 Request for Information (RFI) verified that a suitable (Technological 

Readiness Level 6 or higher) Ku-TCDL terminal will not be available at System Development and 

Demonstration (SDD) contract award to be engineered into the STUAS/Tier II UAS aircraft due to size 

limitations. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battle Space Awareness, Protection, Logistics 

C. Performance Attributes: Lightweight Transceiver; directional antenna efficient in Ku Band 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: STUAS/Tier II UAS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) By Year: FY09 – TRL 5-6; FY10 – TRL 6–7 

D.36 Local Visualization 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Performed as part of JGRE Tactical Behaviors effort, Local Visualization is a 

technology development and integration effort aimed at increasing the overall situational awareness and 

visualization capabilities of the MTRS MK1 and MK2 robotic platforms. A technology such as real-time 3D 

environment representation, stereo vision display, or head-tracking vision will be fully integrated and tested on 

one or both of the MTRS platforms. This effort is to transition directly to the MTRS CIP effort for final 

integration of the technology into the MTRS fielded configuration(s). 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Increased overall situational awareness and visualization capabilities of one or both 

of the MTRS robotic platforms; improvements over the current visualization capabilities of the platforms 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: MTRS, AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 6 

D.37 Manipulator Dexterity 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Development of a manipulator and end effectors that are modular in nature and 

can be scaled larger or smaller in order to achieve commonality across different weight classes of future Joint 

EOD UGVs. The effort will culminate with the delivery of a prototype that is expected to have a technological 

maturity of at least TRL 6. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 163 

C. Performance Attributes: Commonality across a family of manipulators; modularity within each manipulator; 

End effectors with more capability than the current simple “claws” end effectors; multiple end effectors that can 

be changed out remotely as needed during a mission. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 6; FY11 – 7; FY13 – 8 

D.38 Man-Portable ISR Robot 

A. Narrative Describing Effort:

This project will develop enhanced UGV capabilities that specifically support persistent surveillance and 

reconnaissance applications. Enhancements will include, at a minimum: 

 Power duration of up to 72 hours of continuous operation, 

 Extended-range non-line-of-site communications, 

 An integrated, configurable sensor suite that can accommodate optical, acoustic, electronic, and CBRN 

sensors, 

 Ability to maneuver cross-country semi-autonomously. 

The final system design and capabilities will be determined after a detailed examination of user requirements 

and a comparison of potential technological solutions. A prototype will be developed in accordance with the 

new design. Technology integration will focus on high powered COFDM and XG radio systems, fuel-cell and 

diesel electric hybrid power systems, improved mobility platforms, intelligence software, and electro-optic 

sensor suite, all tailored for ISR mission needs. The project will culminate in multiple user trials and one or 

more operational experiments using the new prototype system. 

B. Capabilities Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Protection 

C. Performance attributes: Long-range communications.; extended mission endurance; cross-country mobility 

D. Current or future acquisition program(s) supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY08 – TRL 2; FY09 – TRL 4; FY10 – TRL 6 

D.39 Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration 

(ACTD) program developed and integrated MAV technologies into militarily useful and affordable 

backpackable systems suitable for dismounted Soldier, Marine, and special forces missions. The ACTD focused 

on developing lift-augmented ducted fan MAVs for unique military 

missions, particularly hover and stare in restricted environments. The 

system provides the small unit with real-time combat information of 

difficult to observe and/or distant areas or objects, and will also be used 

in a variety of complex warfighting environments (e.g., mountainous 

terrain, urban areas, and confined spaces). 

B. Capability Supported: 

 Battlespace Awareness – ISR for land forces 

 Protection – Prevent kinetic attack for EOD 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual system; Spectrum Constrained 

RF; Mission endurance in minutes; Operator controlled; OPSEC – 

signature high 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: FCS Class I, 

Block 0; Acquisition for Joint EOD – TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 9 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 164 

D.40 Modeling and Simulation 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Robotics have rapidly become a disruptive technology within the United States 

military forces. Many recognize the potential of robotics/unmanned systems in military operations; yet few 

understand how to employ them effectively. Computer generated modeling and simulation tools are extremely 

valuable in an attempt to generate both operational concepts for tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) as 

well as technical requirements to enable those procedures,. If conducted early on in the prototyping process 

(i.e., TRL 2 – 4) rather than after a prototype is considered “ready for transition,” the process of conducting 

repetitive, integrated simulated and live user exercises with both computer models of new and disruptive 

technologies with the prototypes themselves, has great potential for both speeding up and improving the design 

and development process, but only if the S&T community, combat developers, and end users, all actively 

participate, early on and continually. This is especially true with disruptive technologies like robotics/unmanned 

systems that have not previously been employed in combat. This program seeks to develop the modeling and 

simulation (M&S) tools needed to assess the impact of robotic systems on military forces. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Command and Control, Battlespace Awareness, Net-Centric, 

Building Partnerships, Protection, Logistics, Force Support, and Corporate Management and Support. 

C. Performance Attributes: Accurate reflection of specific system concepts and designs from the onset; continual 

maturation (i.e., increased fidelity, performance, etc.); repetitive process 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Practically all OSD Unmanned Systems Roadmaplisted programs/projects could benefit from employing M&S analysis during their early development phases, 

e.g., “Formulation of Technology Concept or Application” (TRL 2), “Analytical & Experimental Critical 

Function and/or Characteristic Proof-of-Concept” (TRL 3), and “Component and/or Breadboard Validation in a 

Laboratory Environment” (TRL 4). 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: Notional: FY09 - TRL3; FY10 - TRL 4; FY11 - TRL 5; FY12 - TRL 

6; FY13 - TRL 7; FY14 - TRL 8; FY15 - TRL 9. Specific TRL levels will vary by each specific M&S tool. 

D.41 Multi Dimensional Mobility Robot (MDMR) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Multi Dimensional Mobility Robot (MDMR) program will investigate using 

serpentine mobility to achieve new ground robot capabilities for search and rescue in hazardous environments, 

such as urban rubble piles. To achieve such a degree of mobility, design concepts will address a variety of 

challenges including: on-board power management; situational awareness; complex terrain navigation; and 

system controls. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness – Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual System; Spectrum Independent – Hopping; Mission Endurance – Hours; 

Operator Controlled; Expanded Environmental Difficulty; Product Line Independent; OPSEC Signature – Low; 

Operational Control 1:1 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2008 – TRL 6 

D.42 Multi-mission Modular Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Chemical, 

Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Payloads Initiative 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Multi-mission Modular Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Payloads 

Initiative program will leverage DTRA’s unique UAS and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear 

(CBRN) sensor expertise and capabilities across directorates to meet a broad set of functional area mission 

requirements including Combat Assessment, Nuclear Forensics, Target Area ISR, Force Protection, Weapons of 

Mass Destruction (WMD) Elimination and Post Intercept Assessment. The initiative will build on current 

DTRA CBRN sensor/UAS integration efforts including WMD Aerial Collection System (WACS), Biological 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 165 

Combat Assessment System (BCAS), NT Forensics and the Multi-mission CBRN Sampling Study. Initiative 

objectives include producing modularized CBRN sensing payloads that satisfy Warfighter CBRN requirements, 

eliminate multiple systems integrators, and reduce the number of unique DTRA solutions/platforms for aerial 

CBRN sensing. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness: ISR Planning & Direction, Collection, Processing/Exploitation, 

Analysis and Production and ISR Dissemination. 

C. Performance Enabled: Mission Package Product Line Independent; Real-time detection, identification, 

collection and tracking of CBRN materials in a threat environment. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.43 Multi-modal Human Detection 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Human detection based on the integration and fusion of a number of 

technologies, including acoustic, thermal, radar, ladar, visual, and multispectral sensors. Numerous detection 

approaches exist, depending on the environment and application. Detection from a static location is the most 

proven method; to detect humans from mobile robot platforms introduces more environment variables in order 

to perform the detection on-the-move. Change detection is another approach, which requires a baseline model 

of the environment. As 3D world modeling techniques from mobile robot platforms become more mature, a 

priori information may no longer be needed, and changes can be more easily detected and identified. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Classification of human vs. other anomalies with certain detection and false alarm 

rates. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: Given adequate funding, and depending on applications: FY09 - TRL 

3-4; FY10 – TRL 4-5; FY11 - TRL 5-6 

D.44 Nano-Flapping Air Vehicle 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Nano-Flapping Air Vehicles program will develop flapping air vehicle 

technology leading to a bio-inspired flapping air vehicle with less than two-inch wingspan and gross takeoff 

weight of approximately 10 grams or less. Urban terrain operations require sensors that can be inserted without 

being detected, and that can navigate in difficult terrain. Small air vehicles that could be camouflaged or that 

blend into the surrounding landscape and that can navigate interiors without GPS could autonomously carry out 

a number of high-risk missions currently done by Warfighters. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application; Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Teleoperation; Individual system; Mission endurance in hours; Obstacle Avoidance; 

Moderate Environmental Difficulty; OPSEC – Sig Moderate 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL4; FY10 – TRL5; FY11 – TRL5; FY12 – TRL6; FY13 – 

TRL6 

D.45 Navigation 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Autonomous Robotic Capability Suite (ARCS) program addresses a 

USA Engineering requirement to provide a multifunctional robotic capability using fielded small robotic 

systems while demonstrating system collaboration. Today’s robots cannot adaptively seek, automatically map 

or provide the dexterity or mobility to address complex hazards. The overarching goal of the ARCS effort is to 

provide intelligent, mission centric payloads that transform existing robots into effective threat identification, 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 166 

characterization, and mapping systems. The ARCS program will develop plug and play payloads for multiple 

missions (e.g., countermine, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN), improvised explosive device 

(IED), and human detection). The system will seek and show threats in a real-time map that effectively 

communicates a safe route. The result will be robotic systems that are more effective at finding and localizing 

threats. 

B. Capability Supported: This applies to command and control, force support, & protection. 

Support of JGR Technology Matrix: 

1. Interface Technologies: Organic tasking tools such as hand-held controllers for proximal interaction on the 

move to task manage and control multiple unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and UGVs to collaboratively 

conduct specified missions. 

2. Autonomous Technologies: Provides small-scale, inexpensive autonomy payloads imbedded with sensor 

based tactical behaviors to achieve collaborative threat seeking capabilities. 

3. Sensors-Perception for UAS and UGV navigation, collaborative behaviors and explosive hazard detection. 

4. Seamless positioning for UAS and UGV navigation, such that UAS and UGVs can support one another in 

the case of communications and positioning failures 

5. Path Planning for the UAS to UGV to plan and execute a path to a sensor designated point on the ground. 

6. Local common operating picture tools that use common reference points and environmental features to 

support mission planning. 

7. Cooperative behaviors to search for, detect, report and mark countermine (CM) and CBRN and explosive 

hazards. 

8. Enhancement to the INL’s robot intelligence kernel (RIK) – a common behavior architecture for unmanned 

ground vehicles developed by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) INL and (b) a multi-robot mission 

planning and tasking architecture developed by the SPAWAR. 

Interoperability: ARCS benefits from a high level of interoperability between the search UAS and the 

search and detect small UGVs. In addition, the program requires advanced interoperability between the 

unmanned systems payloads and the sensors to affect tactical behaviors. All behaviors will be developed to 

be portable and reconfigurable so that they can be used on multiple ground vehicles. The behaviors 

involved in this program have already been ported and demonstrated on 20 unique robotic systems. 

Joint Interest: This experiment will bring together multi-agency advanced technologies to include: 

1. Advanced countermine sensor technology developed by the NVESD, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

2. Integrated marking system from SPAWAR, San Diego. 

3. Adjustable autonomy behaviors for navigation, coverage from INL to enable countermine tactical behavior 

robots. 

4. Payload development and support from Program Manager Countermine and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(PM CM&EOD), Fort Belvoir, VA. 

5. Payload development from selected vendor(s). 

6. Small UAS from INL with semi-autonomous capabilities and sensors. 

C. Performance Attributes: Mission complexity; maneuverability; architecture unlimited; autonomous 

navigation; complex terrain mobility; situational awareness 

D. Current or future acquisition program(s) supported: PM CM&EOD Countermine Mobility Marking 

Autonomy and Detection (CMMAD) project; Technology Transfer Agreements (TTA) are in draft in order to 

ensure that the integrated packages from the ARCS efforts are utilized by emerging Capability Description 

Documents (CDDs) and Capability Production Documents (CPDs). The Robotic Tool Kit Initial Capability 

Document (ICD) (draft) from USAIC specifically references the data and capabilities from ARCS as a 

developmental need for the Tool Kit concept. 

 Countermine Mobility Marking Autonomy and Detection (CMMAD); PM CM&EOD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 167 

 Autonomous Mine Detection System (AMDS) CPD; MANSCEN, Ft. Leonard-Wood 

 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) Block 1 CPD; USAIC, Ft. Benning 

 Robotics Tool Kit ICD (Draft); USAIC, Ft. Benning 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.46 Next Generation Power Resources 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would provide unmanned with the enhanced, smaller 

and more robust power sources. These technologies include, but are not limited to, propane fueled solid oxide 

fuel cells, reduced size/weight dc-dc converters, in-hub electric motors, auxiliary power units and other fuel cell 

technologies. 

B. Capability Supported: Potentially all JCAs. 

C. Performance Attributes: Environmental Difficulty, OPSEC Signature, Mission Endurance, Survivability, 

Speed, Maneuverability 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: FCS, Wheeled Vehicle Power & Mobility ATO, 

HEVEA, JP-8 Reformation ATO, (Proposed) JP-8 Powered FC Reformation System, (Proposed) Fuel Cell 

Power, Non-Primary Power ATO, Power and Thermal Management Technologies ATO, (Proposed) Advanced 

Cognitive Power Mgmt., (Proposed) High Power Non-Primary Power System, (Proposed) Integrated 

Hybridized Power Sources & small UGVs. 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TRL 7 at end of project. 

D.47 Nightingale II – Integrated UAS/UGV System 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The objective of this research effort is to develop and integrate the requisite 

technologies, an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) systems, for medical 

resupply and casualty extraction/CASEVAC (being renamed by DoD to Tactical Evacuation Care) missions. 

Medical supplies almost always have to be transported from the air vehicle landing site to where they are 

needed. Additionally, casualties must be transported to the landing site from the point-of-injury. These ground 

transport distances, while usually not long, are often dangerous and over/through complex terrain. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Support, Logistics, Battlespace Awareness, Building Partnerships, Force 

Application, Logistics and Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Medical Resupply; Casualty Extraction and short-range Evacuation; Logistics 

Delivery; Contaminated Remains Recovery; Tactical Reconnaissance/Surveillance missions; Autonomous UAS 

and UGV mission planning; Autonomous UAS takeoff and transit (including collision avoidance and obstacle 

avoidance); autonomous landing site selection and landing; requisite all weather, day/night sensors; C2 with 

medical personnel; Autonomous UAS flight control systems; UAS integration with a closed-loop critical care 

capability (e.g., Life Support for Trauma and Transport); Autonomous UGV operations over/in complex terrain; 

UAS/UGV collaborative operations/teaming; UAS/UGV sensing and autonomous perception 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Future Combat System, Navy Maritime Future 

Forces 2050, UAS for Air Cargo Delivery, USSOCOM Autonomous Expeditionary Support Program (AESP), 

Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot Project, The Combat Medic UAS System for Resupply and Evacuation, 

and the Autonomous CASEVAC (to be renamed Tactical Evacuation Care) Enroute Care System projects. 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 4; FY10 - TRL 5; FY11 - TRL 5; FY12 - TRL 6; FY12 - 

TRL 6; FY13 - TRL 7; FY14 - TRL 7 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 168 

D.48 Non-Radio Frequency (RF) Communications 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop a robust wireless communication system for UGV’s that utilizes 

infrared and ultraviolet (UV) free space optical technologies which are much less susceptible to electromagnetic 

interference and frequency deconfliction issues. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection, Logistics, Battlespace Awareness, Force Application. 

C. Performance Attributes: Robust performance in environments with EMI; Robust LOS and NLOS 

performance in urban and rural environments out to 1 km; Specific performance attributes will vary by system 

but for most applications will include: high data rates (<3 Mb/s), low-latency (<200 ms) video and command 

and control data transmission including time for encoding and decoding digital video and 

encryption/decryption; secure transmission of classified and unclassified data. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: MTRS, AEODRS 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 3 

D.49 Opportunistic Communications 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to support unmanned systems communications agility 

through all communications systems. Future unmanned systems will require the ability to communicate through 

any and all means possible to the various entities in its sphere of influence. Humans have the ability to 

communicate using any available means such as telephones, digital computer messages, even visual signals 

(flashing lights, smoke signals). Unmanned systems will need to exploit all conventional as well as future 

communications systems and protocols. This will require the systems to be able to locate and exploit not only 

radio frequency communications, but also hardwired networks (Ethernet, telephone, etc.), and voice 

communication systems. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, Net-centric, Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Natural Language Understanding; Multi-Frequency Communications; Autonomous 

Bandwidth; Fully Autonomous Situational Awareness 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 1; 2030 – TRL 6 

D.50 Opportunistic Power Grazing 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies to enable robotic systems to autonomously find and 

exploit sources of power during mission execution. Future unmanned systems will need to be able to maintain 

their systems independently of maintenance or servicing personnel during mission execution. The unmanned 

systems will require the ability to identify and refuel itself with the appropriate source of fuel. For some systems 

this will be a liquid fuel source (gas, diesel, LNG, etc.) for other systems it will be electrical power. The 

systems will also have to be able to perform their primary mission while refueling/recharging. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Building Partnerships; Force Application; Force Support; 

Logistics; Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Autonomous Adaptive Tactical Behaviors; All-Weather Environmental Difficulty; 

OPSEC – Signature Low; Mission endurance in months; Fully Autonomous Situational Awareness 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 2; 2031 – TRL 6 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 169 

D.51 Organic Air Vehicle – II (OAV-II) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The Organic Air Vehicle – II (OAV II) program developed lift augmented 

ducted fan vertical flight vehicles together with their associated flight controls, collision avoidance systems, 

non-line-of-sight communications capability, and heavy fuel engines. The OAV-II program leveraged several 

programs in DARPA and the services, including advanced communications, sensor developments, the Micro 

Air Vehicle Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration, and UAS command and control programs. The 

objective dry system weight (no fuel) of the OAV II is 112 pounds. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Force Application 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual system; Spectrum Constrained RF; Mission endurance in hours; Operator 

controlled; OPSEC – signature medium to low 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 6 

D.52 Passive Signature Management 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would support a passive RF signature defense. 

Signature management might be through coatings, shaping, materials or other technologies. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Force Application; Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Ingress and egress undetected or if detected have a very low probability of enemy 

tracking to a firing solution in a low and medium threat environment. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2009 – TRL 3; 2015 – TRL 6 

D.53 Rapid Eye 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The goal of the Rapid Eye program is to develop a high altitude, long endurance 

unmanned aircraft that can be deployed world-wide using a rocket from the continental United States within one 

to two hours, to perform ISR, and communication missions. Rapid Eye will provide decision makers rapidreaction ISR and persistent communication capability. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual System; Spectrum Constrained RF; Mission Endurance in hours; Route 

Planning, Route Planning; Mission Package Product Line Dependant; OPSEC – Signature High, 1:1 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY14 - TRL 7 

D.54 Real-time High Fidelity World Modeling 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: 3D world modeling for navigation/mission planning or manipulation from the 

same sensor and algorithm set. This includes outdoor and indoor models that are referenced to each other and 

global coordinates. Models are of sufficient resolution to perform navigation, planning and manipulation tasks 

and are textured with color images. This includes delineation of objects such as human subjects, doorways, etc. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application, Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Real-time modeling; 1 cm resolution; Accurate color representation 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 170 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.55 Robotic Extraction, Evacuation and Enroute Combat Casualty Care 

(RE3C3) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: This program involves building a prototype robotic patient extraction and 

evacuation system with teleoperation, semi-autonomous, and autonomous control capabilities implemented on a 

marsupial robotic vehicle pair; a larger Robotic Evacuation Vehicle (REV) for long-range patient evacuation (from 

first responder medic to forward casualty collection and treatment site), and a smaller Robotic Extraction Vehicle 

(REX) for short-range patient extraction (from site of injury to soldier first responder or medic). The base Tactical 

Amphibious Ground Support System (TAGS) UGV was identified by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command 

(TARDEC) as having potential for robotic sentry monitoring and reconnaissance tasks. The hardware and software 

required for both the medical and sentry applications are substantially similar, with the main systematic differences 

being in the mission specific payload and application of the underlying robotic vehicle functions. Work continues 

supported by TATRC and TARDEC to develop Patient Transport and driver/attendant payloads for the TAGS-CX 

platform which are modular and removable by two men. Both modules are being fitted with lightweight removable 

armor. The objective is to demonstrate that the generic TAGS-CX platform can be rapidly configured or 

reconfigured for multiple missions including patient evacuation. JAUS communications with and among the 

UGVs, their force protection sensors, and medical payloads is being implemented via a secure tri-band orthogonal 

frequency division multiplexing ultra wide band mesh network developed and implemented by ARL. 

TAGS-CX Vehicle with BEAR Attached and USSOCOM 

Autonomous Expeditionary Support Platform (AESP) 

B. Capability Supported: Force Support; Logistics; Protection; Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Casualty Extraction and short-range Evacuation, Logistics/Cargo Delivery, 

Contaminated Remains Recovery, ‘Pack-Mule’ Supply Carriage for tactical units, and Tactical 

Reconnaissance/Surveillance. Specific technology being pursued: Autonomous UGV navigation, rough terrain 

transit, leader-follower, vision-based navigation, gesture control, and voice control 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Army Future Combat System, Navy Maritime Future 

Force 2025, USSOCOM Autonomous Expeditionary Support Program (AESP), Autonomous CASEVAC and 

Enroute Care System, and the Battlefield Casualty Extraction Robot program. 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 6; FY10 - TRL 7; FY11 - TRL 8 

D.56 Robotic Force Health Protection Payloads for Unmanned Ground Vehicles 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The objective is to develop modular payload units that can be easily mounted on 

unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) to support force health protection missions, in particular, detection of 

chemical, biological agents and Explosives (CBE) common in IEDs. A proximity Raman Spectroscopy Bio 

Identification (RBI) detector head, laser, spectrometer and associated computation and instrument package 

developed under an SBIR project was integrated into the Wolverine, Talon, and ARES fast Segway-based UGV 

via a teleoperated manipulator arm on the UGV chassis. The Wolverine is controlled using a radio frequency 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 171 

link between the robot and the operator control unit (OCU). A payload interface was written to allow control 

and data transmission to and from the RBI system through this wireless interface. All command and control and 

CBE detector payload data exchanged among the OCU, the UGV platform and the RBI payload are JAUS 

compliant. Currently, a smaller and improved plug-and-play standoff, fused Raman and Laser Induced 

Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) CBE detector is being developed and evaluated. Likewise a standoff fused 

UV (Ultra Violet) Raman and Florence Spectroscopy CBE detector sensor head was developed for 

implementation on a Packbot. Initial testing of both Phase I prototype systems with bio and chemical agents and 

RDX explosives has been completed. In Phase II of both projects detectors are being miniaturized, ruggedized, 

tested with more CBE agents, and implemented on other JAUS compliant UGVs, such as BEAR or the 

USSOCOM AESP UGV platform. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection; Force Support; Building Partnerships; Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: CBRN standoff detection; neutralization; remediation 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Future Combat System, Maritime Future Force 2025 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 6; FY10 – 6; FY11 – TRL 7; FY12 – TRL 7; FY13 – 

TRL 8; FY14 - TRL 8 

D.57 Safety Response (Anti-tampering) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would provide scaleable anti-tampering devices to 

protect small, medium and large unmanned ground vehicles and robots. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection. 

C. Performance Attributes: Man Dependent Situational Awareness, Military Asset Protection and Robotic NonLethal Assets. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 4 

D.58 Safety Response 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: In March 2006, the Defense Safety Oversight Council Acquisition and 

Technology Programs Task Force (ATP TF) initiated a study to identify the unique safety challenges of 

unmanned systems, especially those systems carrying and deploying weapons in a joint environment. These 

safety challenges significantly increase as more unmanned systems are fielded and used in the same warfighting 

environment. The result of the study was summarized in the DoD publication, Unmanned Systems Safety Guide 

for DoD Acquisition. This collaborative process considered input from dozens of experienced personnel from 

all services. A key mandate included looking into the future of unmanned systems. The Unmanned Systems 

Safety Guide for DoD Acquisition is a must-read for all unmanned systems developers. 

B. Capability Supported: All capabilities supported by unmanned systems 

C. Performance Attributes: Weaponization safety; software safety; power system safety 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: All 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: N/A 

D.59 Safety Response (CBRN) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that would enable unmanned systems to conduct survey 

and monitoring missions in response to CBRN hazards. These technologies would be used to provide 

conventional forces with the capability to confirm or deny the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 172 

(WMD) in support of WMD Eliminations (WMD-E), WMD Interdiction (WMD-I) and a capability to respond 

to a hazardous materiel event and/or accident with no risk of initial human exposure. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Characterization of atmospheres; collection of samples; provide sensor information 

to the operator; transport oxygen and CBRN detection/ID sensors into a facility or structure to support initial 

entry operations and site characterization 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: Joint Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance 

System (JNBCRS), Increment II 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 6 

D.60 Self-Forming Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Communications Network 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: This system consists of a system of UAS that provide the Warfighter(s) in the 

area of interest with an autonomous, temporary high bandwidth data chain. This system has been demonstrated 

during flight testing at Camp Roberts, CA in which video from a low-flying UAS was sent to an operator 

located beyond line-of-sight. The video was relayed across five autonomous UAS which formed a temporary 

high-bandwidth chain between the low-flying UAS and the operator requesting the video. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Net-centric 

C. Performance Attributes: Bandwidth; Teaming Within Domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: TBD 

D.61 Sense and Avoid (S&A) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Developing technologies that would support the UAS ability to maintain safe 

separation or S&A other airborne vehicles or hazards in both civil and combat airspace, as well as recording and 

reporting obstructions as they are encountered. Other hazards in the terminal environment may include: towers, 

buildings, power lines or during low level flight; trees, mountains, and manmade obstacles. Efforts may include 

a combination of EO/IR, radar, or other technologies that would give UAS unfettered access to national, 

international, and combat airspace during the day and night and during various weather conditions. Efforts will 

include both man-in-the-loop and autonomous maneuvering. In addition to an airborne-only solution, a groundbased sense-and-avoid effort will also be explored. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Force Application; Protection 

C. Performance Attributes: Maintain safe separation from obstacles both in flight and on the ground 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: RQ-4, MQ-1B/C, MQ-9 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: 2010 – TRL 6; 2015 – TRL 8 

D.62 Sensors to Enable Robust Harsh-Weather Operations 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Develop technologies that enable unmanned systems to operate in all weather 

conditions. These technologies would include developing new or improving existing sensors, sensor packaging 

and operator perception and control technologies. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application; Command and Control; Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: The ability to see and sense in all weather conditions without limiting or hindering 

the operator’s perception or situational awareness. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: FCS 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 173 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY12 – TRL 6 

D.63 Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare (SP2S) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: DARPA’s Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare (SP2S) program is developing 

the technology to enable an entirely new generation of perch-and-stare micro air vehicles capable of flying to 

difficult targets, landing on and securing to a “perch” position, conducting sustained, perch-and-stare 

surveillance missions, and then re-launching from its perch and returning to its home base. 

The key technical challenges to be developed and integrated in the micro air vehicle include: (1) multifunctional 

materials that integrate the SP2S airframe structure with the power supply and transmit/receive antennas; (2) 

advanced aerodynamics and control systems, including auto-land and auto-home functions; (3) perch-and-grip 

technology; (4) microminiature pan/tilt/zoom EO cameras; (5) autonomous image capture; and (6) data link 

communications relay capability with multiple digital channels that enables beyond-line-of-sight 

communications, with data/video encryption. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Force Application; Command & Control 

C. Performance Attributes: Teaming within Domain; RF-based; Mission endurance: hours to days ; FalconViewbased route planning by operator; Operation in difficult environments; Mission package single-vendor; Low 

weight; back-packable; on-demand ISR; Operational control: 1 operator to many operators, within the domain 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY08 – TRL 4; FY09 – TRL 7 

D.64 Super Dexterity 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Manipulator and end effectors based on polymer muscle technology. 

B. Capability Supported: Protection; Battlespace Awareness; Building Partnerships 

C. Performance Attributes: Manipulator/end effector dexterity and tactility much greater than that of a human; 

Serpentine capability; Zero latency when being teleoperated. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 3 

D.65 Tactical Amphibious Ground Support System (TAGS) 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: TAGS-CX was developed as a MULE surrogate robotic platform to demonstrate 

mission reconfiguration potential and applicable technologies for a 6000 pound robot capable of maneuvering 

over complex terrains. 

B. Capability Supported: Battlespace Awareness; Force Application; Force Protection; Logistics 

C. Performance Attributes: Applies to survivability, limited environmental difficulty, and mission complexity. 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

D.66 Vision of the Trauma Pod 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The vision of the Trauma Pod program is to develop a rapidly deployable system 

permitting a remote physician to perform critical acute stabilization and/or surgical procedures in a teleoperative 

mode on wounded soldiers on the battlefield who might otherwise die from loss of airway, hemorrhage, or other 

acute injuries, such as a tension pneumothorax, before they can be transported to a combat hospital. The system 

would be used when the timely deployment of proper medical personnel is not possible or too risky, and the 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 174 

patient cannot be evacuated quickly enough to an appropriate medical facility. The program has demonstrated, 

for the first time, the conduct of a surgical procedure on a human phantom using only a telerobotic surgeon and 

robotic surgical assistants. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Support 

C. Performance Attributes: Autonomous mobility; mission endurance in hours; expanded environmental 

mobility; adaptive tactical behaviors 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 – TRL 3; FY10 – TRL 3; FY11- TRL 4 

D.67 Voice Control 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: Voice control teleoperation of a mobile robot, supplementing traditional control 

via Operator Control Units (joysticks and screens). New technologies include audio pick-up through the ear 

canal, which blocks out much of the environmental noise. The microphone is inserted into the ear canal instead 

of being in front of the mouth. Voice recognition software must be tuned to the new medium. 

B. Capability Supported: Force Application; Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Speech recognition in noisy or windy environments; teleoperation 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY09 - TRL 7; FY10 - TRL 8; FY11 - TRL 9 

D.68 Vulture 

A. Narrative Describing Effort: The goal of the Vulture program is to develop a high altitude, long endurance 

(multi-year) unmanned aircraft to perform intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and communication 

missions over an area of interest. Vulture would provide the responsive, affordable, retaskable and persistent 

on-station capability available in an aircraft, with a support footprint smaller than that of a satellite. 

B. Capability Supported: Command and Control; Battlespace Awareness; Battlespace Awareness 

C. Performance Attributes: Individual System; Spectrum Independent – Hopping; Mission endurance in years; 

Mission complexity – autonomous; Expanded Environmental Difficulty; OPSEC – Signature Low; Operational 

Control 1:1 

D. Current or Future Acquisition Program(s) Supported: TBD 

E. Technology Readiness Levels by Year: FY15 - TRL 7 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 175 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 176 

APPENDIX E. JOINT CAPABILITY AREA (JCA) DEFINITIONS

Joint Capability Areas (JCAs). Collections of like DoD capabilities functionally grouped to 

support capability analysis, strategy development, investment decision making, capability 

portfolio management, and capabilities-based force development and operational planning. 

Tier 1 JCA. High-level capability category that facilitates capabilities-based planning, major 

trade analysis and decision-making. 

Tier 2 JCA. More specific capability category within a parent Tier 1 JCA. Tier 2 JCAs provide 

sufficient definition to enable the identification of required capabilities. 

Battlespace Awareness. The ability to understand the disposition and intentions as well as the 

characteristics and conditions of the operational environment that bear on national and military 

decision making. 

Building Partnerships. The ability to set the conditions for interaction with partner, competitor, 

or adversary leaders, military forces, or relevant populations by developing and presenting 

information and conducting activities to affect their perceptions, will, behavior, and capabilities. 

Command and Control. The ability to exercise authority and direction by a properly designated 

commander or decision maker over assigned and attached forces and resources in the 

accomplishment of the mission. 

Corporate Management and Support. The ability to provide strategic senior level, enterprisewide leadership, direction, coordination, and oversight through a chief management officer 

function. 

Force Application. The ability to integrate the use of maneuver and engagement in all 

environments to create the effects necessary to achieve mission objectives. 

Force Support. The ability to establish, develop, maintain and manage a mission ready Total 

Force, and provide, operate, and maintain capable installation assets across the total force to 

ensure needed capabilities are available to support national security. 

Logistics. The ability to project and sustain a logistically ready joint force through the deliberate 

sharing of national and multi-national resources to effectively support operations, extend 

operational reach, and provide the joint force commander the freedom of action necessary to 

meet mission objectives. 

Net-Centric. The ability to provide a framework for full human and technical connectivity and 

interoperability that allows all DoD users and mission partners to share the information they 

need, when they need it, in a form they can understand and act on with confidence, and protects 

information from those who should not have it. 

Protection. The ability to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of attacks on personnel 

(combatant/non-combatant) and physical assets of the United States, allies, and friends. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 177 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 178 

APPENDIX F. UNMANNED SYSTEMS STANDARDS 

F.1 Interoperability Requirements 

Interoperability is the ability to operate in synergy in the execution of assigned tasks (JP1-02). 

Properly implemented, it can serve as a force multiplier and can simplify logistics. DoDD 5000.1 

establishes the requirement to acquire systems and families of systems that are interoperable.4

 

DoD’s unmanned systems will need to demonstrate interoperability on a number of levels: 

 Among different systems of the same modality. The Army’s OneSystem common ground 

control station (GCS) for its MQ-5 Hunter, RQ-7 Shadow, and MQ-1 Warrior UAS is an 

example of this level of existing interoperability. 

 Among systems of different modalities. The planned ability of ground and air vehicles of the 

Army’s FCS to work cooperatively is an example of this level of future interoperability. 

 Among systems operated by different Military Departments under various concepts of 

operations (CONOPS) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP), i.e., in joint 

operations. An example of this is the Joint Forces Air Component Commanders’ Air Tasking 

Order (ATO). 

 Among systems operated and employed by Coalition/Allied Militaries under the governance 

of various concepts of employment (CONEMP), TTPs, i.e., in multi-national combined 

operations, or NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAG). An example of this is the indevelopment NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre’s “Guidance on Employment 

Principles for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in NATO” CONEMP, which will be 

NATO’s version of the DoD’s Joint UAS CONOPS document. 

 Among military systems and systems operated by other entities in a common environment. 

The ability of military UAS to share the National Airspace System (NAS) and international 

airspace with commercial airliners and general aviation is an example of this level of future 

interoperability. 

 Among systems operated by non-DoD organizations, allies, and coalition partners, i.e., in 

combined operations. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) RQ-9 Predator Bs and the 

MQ-9 Reapers of the Air Force and the RQ-1 Predators of the Italian Air Force and MQ-1 

Predators of the U.S. Air Force are limited (same modality, same model), existing examples 

of this level of interoperability. 

Interoperability is achieved by buying common components, systems, and software and/or by 

building systems to common standards. It is most affordable when built into the DoD systems 

during the design and acquisition phases, and formal standards best ensure interoperability is 

incorporated during these phases. 

F.2 Unmanned Systems Standards 

Standards (formal agreements for the design, manufacture, testing, and performance of 

technologies) are a key enabler of interoperability. PL104-1135

 requires Federal organizations to 

adopt commercial standards where practical rather than expending its resources to create or 

maintain similar ones, specifically in the case of military standards. Where needed standards do 

 

4

 DoDD 5000.1, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.10. 

5

 Public Law (PL) 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 179 

not exist or prove insufficient, OMB Circular A-1196 directs Federal employees to work within 

consensus-based standards development organizations (SDOs) to create such standards. SDOs 

are domestic or international organizations that plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary 

consensus standards using agreed upon procedures that define openness, consensus, balance, due 

process, and appeals. DoD 4120.24-M7 requires that DoD first consider using non-Government 

standards (NGSs), or support revising or developing a NGS to meet DoD needs, in preference to 

using Federal documents whenever feasible. In addition to interoperability, using standards also 

promotes product quality assurance, furthers DoD commercial acquisition goals, conserves DoD 

resources, supports the U.S. industrial base, promotes dual-use technology, and improves DoD’s 

mobilization capabilities. 

Recognizing the relationship between interoperability and standards, the Secretary of Defense 

delegated responsibility to the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who 

assigned the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO) as the executive agent to 

encourage and coordinate DoD’s role in standards development and use. DSPO is the DoD 

representative on the Congressionally mandated Interagency Committee for Standards Policy, 

which is chaired by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and consists of 

representatives from most Federal agencies. DoD’s unmanned community, represented by Naval 

Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) PMA-263, began developing UAS standards for NATO in 

the mid-1990s as a participant in NATO’s Planning Group 35 (PG-35). Beginning in 2002, a 

number of SDOs began creating committees within their ranks to address the needs of the 

unmanned community across the spectrum of U.S. and international, as well as military, civil, 

and commercial, users of unmanned systems (see gy for autonomous capabilities.). DSPO 

reviews and coordinates standards developed by these SDO committees for adoption by DoD.

DoD personnel are actively participating within these SDOs in the following roles to develop 

standards for unmanned systems: 

 Ensuring DoD-relevant standards are being created, 

 Guarding against wording in standards that would be at cross purposes with DoD’s needs 

(e.g., compromising DoD’s right to self-certify aircraft airworthiness), and 

 Preventing duplication of standard-creating efforts across SDOs. 

This last role is important because the practices of individual industry often provide the starting 

point of community-wide standards and make the participation of industry experts, which is 

largely voluntary, crucial in creating worthwhile standards; therefore, it becomes important to 

not squander industry’s voluntary support to these SDOs. Through their consensus-based 

processes, SDOs help protect the proprietary concerns of their commercial participants yet draw 

on the expertise of these participants to produce standards for the good of the unmanned 

community. DoD personnel should encourage and complement, not supplant, the participation of 

commercial industries in SDOs. Table F.1 describes the organizations with which DoD members 

are now involved in developing standards for unmanned systems. 

The DoD unmanned community participates in standards development through three avenues: 

 

6

 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 1998. 

7

 DoD 4120.24-M, Defense Standardization Program Policies and Procedures. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 180 

 NATO Standardization Agency, through the work of its Joint Capability Group on 

Unmanned Air Vehicles (JCGUAV), 

 OSD JGRE, through the work of the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) AS-4 

Unmanned Systems Committee, and 

 Military Department UAS program offices, through their UAS Airspace Integration Joint 

Integrated Product Team (JIPT). 

Each coordinates (or should coordinate) its products with DSPO. A fourth, Federal venue for 

unmanned standards, NIST, has, with DoD participation, worked primarily to establish 

terminology for autonomous capabilities. 

SDO 

Category of Information AIAA* ASTM* RTCA* SAE* 

Certification ANSI ANSI/ISO ANSI 

UAS Committee UAS COS* F38 SC-203 AS-4, others 

 - Formed Oct 2002 Jul 2003 Dec 2004 Aug 2004 

 - No. of Members ~15 ~200 ~200 ~120 

No. of Standards 

 - Produced 60 15,000 152 8300 

 - On Aviation 7 200+ 152 4000+ 

 - Adopted by DoD 3 2572 0 3240 

 - Recognized by FAA 0 30+ 152 Numerous 

 - Produced on Unmanned Systems 1 8 0 1 

 - In Work on Unmanned Systems 0 12 3 4 

* AIAA = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; ASTM = American Society of Testing and Materials; COS = Committee on 

Standards; RTCA = Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics; SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers

Table F.1. Organizations Developing Standards for Unmanned Systems 

F.2.1 Unmanned Air Standards 

The leaders of the UAS program offices in the Military Departments are the 303d

 Aeronautical 

Systems Wing (Air Force), PMA-263 (Navy), and SFAE-AV-UAS (Army). Together, they 

formed the UAS Airspace Integration JIPT in 2005 to address common issues and formulate a 

common approach to gaining access to airspace outside of military special-use airspaces for their 

unmanned aircraft. The JIPT is chartered to provide “recommendations for regulations, policies, 

and standards” that will lead to eventual acceptance of unmanned military aircraft routinely 

flying among civilian, manned aircraft. Having identified an automated “sense and avoid” (S&A) 

capability and secure, robust communication links as the two foremost challenges to achieving 

this vision, the JIPT is working in close association with the FAA-chartered RTCA SC-203 

committee on unmanned aviation that has as its objective to solve the same two issues. Although 

neither group has set a firm timetable for producing an S&A (or a control and communication) 

recommendation, such a deliverable is not expected before 2010. Until then, DSPO has adopted 

ASTM F2411 as an interim performance standard for UAS S&A systems, and conformance with 

it can be cited as a risk-mitigating measure in DoD requests for certificates of authorization 

(COAs) to the FAA. 

The JIPT is organized into issue-focused subteams and support-focused activity centers (see 

Figure A.5), one of which is a standards development activity center. Its first activity has been to 

perform a standards gap analysis to identify airworthiness, operations, and crew certification 

topics for which standards are lacking or insufficient. The initial survey identified gaps for 

catapults, recovery wires/nets, auto-takeoff and auto-land, and weapons security, among others, 

to be worked by SDOs. One such SDO, ASTM International and its F-38 UAS Committee, 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 181 

published a limited standards gap analysis for unmanned airworthiness in 2005 (ASTM F2501), 

and its recent F2585 standard for pneumatic and hydraulic catapults was adopted for DoD use by 

DSPO in 2006. The organization of JIPT is depicted in A.3. 

In addition to the JIPT’s standards activities, PMA-263 continues to support NATO JCGUAV’s 

interoperability efforts in unmanned aviation. JCGUAV subsumed NATO’s three Military 

Department UAS-related groups (PG-35, Air Group 7, and Task Group 2) in 2006. Its major 

accomplishments to date have been Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4586 for UAS 

message formats and data protocols, STANAG 4660 for interoperable command and control 

links, STANAG 4670 for training UAS operators, and STANAG 7085 for the CDL 

communication system, which has been mandated by OSD since 1991. It has also drafted 

STANAG 4671 for UAS airworthiness. Finally, the USJFCOM JUAS COE recently provided 

support to the OUSD (AT&L) UAS TF through review and revision of a draft Airspace 

Integration CONOPS. The JUAS COE also conducted a UAS National Airspace System related 

study for the VCJCS. 

F.2.2 Unmanned Ground Standards 

JAUS began in 1995 as an effort by the Army’s program office for UGVs in the Aviation and 

Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal to 

establish a common set of message formats and data protocols for UGVs made by various 

manufacturers. Deciding to convert JAUS to an international industry standard, the program 

office approached the SAE, an SDO with robotics experience, which established the AS-4 

Unmanned Systems Committee in August 2004. AS-4 has three subcommittees focused on 

requirements, capabilities, and interfaces and an experimental task group to test its recommended 

formats and protocols before formally implementing them. It plans to complete its conversion of 

JAUS and issue it as an SAE standard during third quarter FY2009. Although AS-4 is open to its 

members’ creating standards on other aspects of unmanned systems beyond message formats and 

data protocols for UGVs, much of this broader work is now being undertaken by other UASrelated SDOs. STANAG 4586 is unmanned aviation’s counterpart to JAUS. 

F.2.3 Unmanned Maritime Standards 

The Navy’s Program Executive Officer of Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO(LMW)) formally 

adopted JAUS message formats and data protocols for use with its unmanned undersea, surface, 

and ground vehicles in 2005. Working through SAE AS-4, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

(NUWC) has been expanding JAUS to serve the UMS community. It has found only 21 percent 

of UMS message formats to be directly compatible with the formats of JAUS, with the high 

percentage of new formats needed possibly due to the operation of UMSs in three dimensions 

versus the two dimensions of UGVs, for which JAUS was developed. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 182 

APPENDIX G. UNMANNED SYSTEMS POINTS OF CONTACT

Acquisition Management Laboratories 

OSD DARPA 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) 

(AT&L) 

Portfolio Systems Acquisition 

3090 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-3090 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ds/sa/index.html 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

3701 North Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203-1714 

http ://www.darpa.mil/index.html 

Product Manager, Army UAS ARL 

PM Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Redstone Arsenal 

Huntsville, AL 35801 

https://www.peoavn.army.mil/pm/UAS.shtml 

Army Research Laboratory 

2800 Powder Mill Rd 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197 

http://www.arl.army.mil 

Marine Corps MCWL 

Marine Corp Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) 

2200 Lester Street 

Quantico, VA 22134 

http ://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/ 

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory 

3255 Meyers Avenue 

Quantico, VA 22134 

http ://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/ 

Navy & Marine Corps Small Tactical UAS NRL 

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 

PMA-263 Navy & Marine Corps Small Tactical Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

22707 Cedar Point Rd., Bldg 3261 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

http://navair.navy.mil/pma263/ 

U.S. Naval Research Lab 

4555 Overlook Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20375 

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/ 

Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (Navy UCAS) USAARL 

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 

PMA-268 Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System 

47123 Buse Rd, Bldg 2272, Room 254 

Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547 

U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory 

PO Box 620577 

Fort Rucker, AL 36362-0577 

Air Force AFRL 

Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) 

Public Affairs Office, 1865 Fourth Street, Room 240 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433 

http://ascpublic.wpafb.af.mil/ 

Air Force Research Laboratory 

1864 Fourth Street 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-7132 

http://www.afrl.af.mil/ 

Robotic Systems Joint Project Office Robotics Research Group 

Program Executive Office (PEO) 

Ground Combat Systems RS JPO 

Attn: SFAE-GCS-UGV 

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-8060 

http://www.redstone.army.mil/ugvsjpo/ 

USAF Research Laboratory 

AFRL/MLQF 

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 

Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 

http://www.afrl.af.mil 

Product Manager, 

Robotic and Unmanned Sensors 

Tank-Automotive Research, Development and 

Engineering Center 

PM-RUS 

SFAE-IEW&S-NV-RUS 

Building 423 

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 

https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/ 

IEWS_Public/rus/ 

Program Manager, TARDEC 

6501 E. Eleven Mile Road 

AMSTA-TR-R 

MS#263 (Intelligent Mobility); MS#264 (CAT; Vehtronics) 

Warren, MI 48397-5000 

http://tardec.army.mil 

Product Manager, 

Force Protection Systems 

Aviation and Missile Research, Development and 

Engineering Center (AMRDEC) 

PM-FPS 

ATTN: SFAE-CSS-ME-P 

5900 Putman Road, Suite 1 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5420 

http ://www.pm-fps.army.mil 

CDR, USA AMCOM 

Attn: AMSOM-OSA-UG 

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 

http://www.redstone.army.mil/amrdec/ 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 183 

Acquisition Management Laboratories 

Littoral and Mine Warfare NSWC Panama City 

Program Executive Office 

Littoral and Mine Warfare 

614 Sicard St SE 

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376-7003 

Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City 

110 Vernon Avenue 

Panama City, FL 32407-7001 

http://www.ncsc.navy.mil/ 

Naval EOD Technology Division Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center 

NAVEODTECHDIV 

2008 Stump Neck Road 

Indian Head, MD 20640-5070 

https://naveodtechdiv.jeodnet.mil/ 

Commander, SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC) 

53560 Hull Street 

San Diego, CA 92152-5001 

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego 

NSWC Dahlgren ONR 

Commander Dahlgren Division 

Naval Surface Warfare Center 

17320 Dahlgren Road 

Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100 

http ://www.nswc.navy.mil/wwwDL/ 

Office of Naval Research 

875 North Randolph Street 

Suite 1425 

Arlington, VA 22203-1995 

http ://www.onr.navy.mil/ 

NSWC Carderock NUWC Keyport 

Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Carderock Division 

9500 MacArthur Blvd. 

West Bethesda, MD 20817 

www.boats.dt.navy.mil 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

610 Dowell Street 

Keyport, WA 98345-7610 

http://www-keyport.kpt.nuwc.navy.mil 

US Joint Forces Command Joint UAS Center of 

Excellence 

Unmanned Maritime Vehicle Systems Program Office 

Creech AFB 

4250 Griffiss Avenue 

Nellis AFB, NV 89191 

https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/508226 

(PMS 403) 

1333 Isaac Hull avenue, SE 

Washington Navy Yard DC 20376 

NUWC USAMRMC TATRC 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

1176 Howell St. 

Newport, RI 02841 

http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/npt/ 

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 

Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research 

Center 

ATTN: MCMR-ZB-T, 504 Scott St. 

Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012 

Navy Persistent Maritime UAS 

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 

PMA-262 Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

22707 Cedar Point Rd., Bldg 3261 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma262/ 

Navy Multi-Mission Tactical UAS 

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 

PMA-266 Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems 

22707 Cedar Point Rd., Bldg 3261 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma266/ 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

8725 John J. Kingman Rd. MSC 6201 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

http://www.dtra.mil 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 184 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 185 

APPENDIX H: ACRONYM LIST

Acronym Definition 

AAFL Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory 

ABCI Arizona Border Control Initiative 

ABV Assault Breacher Vehicle 

ACADA Automatic Chemical Agent Detector Alarm 

ACAT Acquisition Category 

ACC Air Combat Command 

ACD&P Advanced Component Development and Prototypes 

ACOMMS Acoustic Communications 

ACR Advanced Ceramics Research 

ACR Area Coverage Rate 

ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration 

ADR/SATCOM All Digital Receiver/Satellite Communications 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

ADUUV Advanced Development Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

AETF Army Experimentation Task Force 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFDD Air Force Doctrine Document 

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory 

AFSOC Air Force Special Operations Command 

AGL Above Ground Level 

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

AL-SUAS Air-launched Small UAS 

AMCM Airborne Mine Countermeasures 

AMO Air and Marine Operations 

AMRDEC Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

ANS Autonomous Navigation System 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

APC Armored Personnel Carrier 

ARA Applied Research Associates 

ARDEC Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

ARL Army Research Laboratory 

ARO Army Research Office 

ARTS All-Purpose Remote Transport System 

ARV Armed Robotic Vehicle 

ASC Aeronautical Systems Center 

ASD Assistant Secretary of Defense 

ASD (NII) Assistant Secretary of Defense, Networks and Information Integration 

ASIP Advanced Signals Intelligence Program 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

ASW Antisubmarine Warfare 

ASW USV Antisubmarine Warfare Unmanned Surface Vehicle 

AT&L Acquisition Technology and Logistics 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATO Robotic Vehicle Technology Advanced Technology Office 

ATO Army Technology Objective or Air Tasking Order 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 186 

Acronym Definition 

AV Air Vehicle 

AVGAS Aviation Gasoline 

BAMS Broad Area Maritime Surveillance 

BATMAV Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle 

BAWS Biological Aerosol Warning Sensor 

BCT Brigade Combat Team 

BEAR Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot 

BLOS Beyond-Line-Of-Sight 

BPAUV Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Undersea Vehicle 

BULS Bottom Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Localization System 

C2 Command and Control 

C3I Command and Control, Communications, and Intelligence 

CASEVAC Casualty Evacuation 

CBA Capabilities-Based Assessment 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear 

CC Centralized Controller 

CCD Charge-Coupled Device (camera); Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception (mission area) 

CDD Capability Development Document 

CDL Common Data Link 

CDR Critical Design Review 

CENTAF U.S. Central Command Air Force 

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command 

CFE Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGS Communications Ground Station 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

CN3 Communication/Navigation Network Node 

CNMAWC Commander, Naval Mine and Anti-submarine Warfare Command 

CNMOC Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography 

CNO Chief of Naval Operations 

COA Certificate of Authorization 

COCOM Combatant Commander 

COE Center of Excellence 

CONOPS Concept of Operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

COO Craft of Opportunity 

COS Committee on Standards; Chief of Staff 

COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf 

CP2 Counterproliferation 

CPRG Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Group 

CRRC Combat Rubber Raiding Craft 

CSD Contaminated Surface Detector 

C-SWAP Cost - Size, Weight, and Power 

CTA Collaborative Technology Alliance 

CUGR CBRN Unmanned Ground Reconnaissance 

CUGV CBRN Unmanned Ground [Reconnaissance] Vehicle 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 187 

Acronym Definition 

CX Common eXperimental 

DACP Defense Acquisition Challenge Program 

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

DEA Data Exchange Agreement; Drug Enforcement Agency 

DFU Dry Filter Unit 

DHS Office of the Department of Homeland Security 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoDD Department of Defense Directive 

DSPO Defense Standardization Program Office 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

DVL Doppler Velocity Log 

EDM Engineering Development Model 

ELOS Equivalent Level of Safety 

EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development 

EO/IR Electro-Optical/Infra-Red 

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

EODMU Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 

ER/MP Extended Range/Multipurpose 

ERAST Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology 

ESM Electronic Support Measures 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration or Functional Area Analysis 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FCS Future Combat System 

FINDER Flight Inserted Detection Expendable for Reconnaissance 

FL Flight Level 

FLTC Future Long-Term Challenges 

FNA Functional Needs Analysis 

FNC Future Naval Capability 

FPASS Force Protection Aerial Surveillance System 

FSA Functional Solutions Analysis 

FSW Feet of Sea Water 

FTU Flying Training Unit 

FY Fiscal Year 

FYDP Future Years Defense Plan 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GCS Ground Control Station 

GCU Ground Control Unit 

GDRS General Dynamics Robotics Systems 

GEMI Global Exchange of Military Information 

GHMD Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration 

GIG Global Information Grid 

GLCM Ground Launched Cruise Missiles 

GMR Ground Mapping Radar 

GO-1 Global Observer 1 

GO-2 Global Observer 2 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSTAMIDS Ground Standoff Mine Detection System 

GTOW Gross Takeoff Weight 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 188 

Acronym Definition 

GWOT Global War on Terrorism 

HD Homeland Defense; High Density 

HDS Hydrographic Doppler Sonar 

HF High Frequency 

HFE Heavy Fuel Engine; Human Factors Engineering 

HNW Highband Network Waveform 

HQMC Headquarters, Marine Corps 

HRI Human-Robot Interface or Interaction 

HS High Speed 

HSI Human Systems Integration 

HTF High Tow Force 

HULS Hull Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Localization System 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICD Initial Capabilities Document 

ICS Integrated Computer System 

IDAS Intrusion Detection and Assessment System 

IED Improvised Explosive Device 

IER Information Exchange Requirement 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

iGlove instrumented Glove 

I-Gnat Improved Gnat 

I-Gnat-ER Improved Gnat Extended Range 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

IMS Ion Mobility Spectrometer 

INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 

INMARSAT International Marine/Maritime Satellite 

INS Inertial Navigation System 

IOC Initial Operational Capability 

IOC/FOC Initial Operational Capability/Final Operational Capability 

IOT&E Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation 

IPB Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace 

IPL Integrated Priorities List 

IR Infrared 

IR&D Independent Research and Development 

ISO International Standards Organization 

ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

J2 Joint Service Light Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance System Increment 2 

JAUS Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems 

JCA Joint Capability Area 

JCAD Joint Chemical Agent Detector 

JCGUAV Joint Capability Group on Unmanned Air Vehicle 

JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System 

JCTD Joint Capability Technology Demonstration 

JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition 

JFC Joint Force Commander 

JFMCC Joint Force Maritime Component Commander 

JGR Joint Ground Robotics 

JGRE Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 189 

Acronym Definition 

JIPT Joint Integrated Product Team 

JLENS Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor 

JP Jet Petroleum; Joint Publication 

JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

JRP Joint Robotics Program 

JRRF Joint Robotic Repair and Fielding 

JSLNBCRS Joint Service Light Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance System 

JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System 

JUAS Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

JUAS COE Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence 

JUAS MRB Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Material Review Board 

J-UCAS Joint Unmanned Combat Air System 

JUEP Joint UAS Experimentation Program 

JUONS Joint Urgent Operational Need Statements 

JUSC2 Joint Unmanned Systems Command and Control 

KLV Key, Length, Value 

L&R Launch and Recovery 

LAGP Learning Applied to Ground Robots 

LBS-AUV Littoral Battlespace Sensing – Autonomous Undersea Vehicle 

LBS-Glider Littoral Battlespace Sensing – Glider 

LCS Littoral Combat Ship 

LH2 Liquid Hydrogen 

LIMES Language for Intelligent Machines 

LMRS Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System 

LMW Littoral and Mine Warfare 

LOS Line Of Sight 

LPUMA Littoral Precision Underwater Mapping 

LRD MTS EO/IR/LASER Range Detector, Designator 

LRIP Low-Rate Initial Production 

LSA Light Sport Aircraft 

LSTAT Life Support for Trauma and Transport 

LWV Lightweight Vehicle 

M&S Modeling and Simulation 

MACE Mine Area Clearance Equipment 

MARCbot Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot 

MASPS Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards 

MAST Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology 

MAV Micro Air Vehicle 

MCM Mine Countermeasure 

MCMTOMF Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Operational Mission Failures 

MCWL Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory 

MDA Maritime Domain Awareness; Missile Defense Agency 

MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Program 

MDARS Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System 

MDSU Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 

MEMS Microelectromechanical Systems 

MGV Manned Ground Vehicle 

MIO Maritime Interdiction Operations 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 190 

Acronym Definition 

MIW Mine Warfare 

MMA Multimission Maritime Aircraft 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOGAS Motor Gasoline 

MOLLE Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment 

MOPS Minimum Operating Performance Standards 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain 

MPEG Motion Picture Experts Group 

MPRF Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force 

MP-RTIP Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program 

MRB Material Review Board 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

MSOBS Multi-Static Off-Board Source 

MTCR Missile Technology Control Regime 

MTI Moving Target Indicator 

MTRS Man Transportable Robotic System 

MTS Multi-spectral Targeting System 

MULE Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle 

MUM Manned Unmanned Teaming 

MURI Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative 

MXF Media Exchange Format 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NAUS Near Autonomous Unmanned Systems 

NAVAIDS Navigation Aid Systems 

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command 

NAVOCEANO ONR and Naval Oceanographic Office 

NCDR National Center for Defense Robotics 

NGEODRV Next Generation Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robotic Vehicle 

NII Networks and Information Integration 

NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology 

NM Nautical Mile 

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration 

NOMWC Naval Oceanography Mine Warfare Center 

NORDO No Radio 

NORTHCOM United States Northern Command 

NPOR Non Program of Record 

NRL Naval Research Laboratory 

NSCT Naval Special Clearance Team 

NSCT ONE Naval Special Clearance Team ONE 

NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center 

NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OBS Off-board Sensing 

OCONUS Outside the Continental United States 

OCS Operators Control Station
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 191 

Acronym Definition 

OCU Operator Control Unit 

ODIS Omni-Directional Inspection System 

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom 

OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom 

OIW Oregon Iron Works 

ONR Office of Naval Research 

ONS Operational Needs Statement 

OSA Open System Architecture 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

OSGCS One System Ground Control Station 

OSR Optimum Speed Rotor 

OTA Other Transaction Agreement 

OTH Over The Horizon 

OUSD Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

PA Project Arrangement or Agreement 

PACOM Pacific Command 

PAN Percussion-Actuated Non-electric 

PBFA Policy Board on Federal Aviation 

PDM Presidential Decision Memorandum 

PG Planning Group 

PIA Post-Independent Analysis 

PID Positive Identification 

PME Professional Military Education 

POE Program Executive Officer 

POM Program Objective Memorandum 

POP Plug-in Optical Payload 

POR Program of Record 

PSA Portfolio Systems Acquisition 

PSMRS Platform Soldier Mission Readiness System 

PTDS Persistent Threat Detection System 

PTF Planning Task Force 

PTIR Precision Track Illumination Radar 

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review 

R&D Research and Development 

RACS Robotics for Agile Combat Support 

RAID Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment 

RAM Reliability, Availability, and Maintenance 

RC Radio-Controlled 

RDECOM Research, Development, and Engineering Command 

RDT&E Research, Development, Training, and Evaluation 

REA Rapid Environmental Assessment 

REAP Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform 

REF Rapid Equipping Force 

REV Robotic Evacuation Vehicle 

REX Robotic Extraction Vehicle 

RF Radio Frequency 

RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 

R-I Reacquisition-Identification 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 192 

Acronym Definition 

RMV Remote Mine-hunting Vehicle 

RONS Remote Ordnance Neutralization System 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle 

RPM Revolutions Per Minute 

RSJPO Robotic Systems Joint Program Office 

RSTA Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 

S&A Sense and Avoid 

SAC Special Airworthiness Certificate 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar 

SAR/MTI Synthetic Aperture Radar/Moving Target Indicator 

SAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar 

SATCOM Satellite Communications 

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research 

SC Special Committee 

S-C-M Search-Classify-Map 

SDD System Development and Demonstration 

SDO Standards Development Organization 

SEIT Systems Engineering and Integration Team 

SLS Sea-Level Standard 

SMCM Surface Mine Countermeasure 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

SMPTE Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers 

SOCOM Special Operations Command 

SOF Special Operations Forces 

SOSCOE System-of-systems Common Operating Environment 

SOUTHCOM US Southern Command 

SPG Strategic Planning Guidance 

SRW Soldier Radio Waveform 

SSG Senior Steering Group 

SSGN Submersible, Ship, Guided, Nuclear 

SSN Submersible, Ship, Nuclear 

STANAG Standardization Agreement 

STT Strategic Technology Team 

STTR Small Business Technology Transfer 

STUAS Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System 

SUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft System 

SUGV Small Unmanned Ground System 

SuR Surveillance Radar 

SWIR/LWIR Shortwave Infrared/Longwave Infrared 

TAB Technology Advisory Board 

TACMAV Tactical Mini-Unmanned Air Vehicle 

TAGS Tactical Amphibious Ground Support System; Tactical Auxiliary Ground Station 

TARDEC Tank-Automotive Research, Development & Engineering Center 

TARS Tethered Aerostat Radar System 

TASS Target Area Strike Support 

TATRC Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 193 

Acronym Definition 

TBD To Be Determined 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

TCDL Tactical Common Data Link 

TCS Tactical Control System 

TESS Tactical Engagement Support System 

TFR Temporary Flight Restrictions 

TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command 

TRL Technology Readiness Levels 

TSWG Technical Support Working Group 

TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 

TUAV Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle 

TUGV Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UCAS Unmanned Combat Air System 

UCAS-D Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration 

UCAV Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle 

UDS Unmanned Dipping Sonar 

UGV Unmanned Ground Vehicle 

UHF Ultra-High Frequency 

UMS Unmanned Maritime Systems 

UNTIA United Nations Transparency in Armaments Resolution 

UOES User-Operational Evaluation System 

UPI PerceptOR Integration 

USAF United States Air Force 

USAMRMC U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 

USBL Ultra-Short Baseline 

USBP U.S. Border Patrol 

USCC Unmanned Systems Capabilities Conference 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USG U.S. Government 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USN United States Navy 

USSS Unmanned Surface Sweep System 

USSV Unmanned Sea Surface Vehicle 

USV Unmanned Surface Vehicle 

UTAS USV Towed Array System 

UUV Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 

UUV-N Unmanned Undersea Vehicle – Neutralization 

UVS Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

VDOC Vienna Document 1999 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VHF Very High Frequency 

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions 

VPN Virtual Private Network 

VSW Very Shallow Water 

VTOL Vertical Take-off and Landing 

VTUAV VTOL Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 194 

Acronym Definition 

VUAV VTOL Unmanned Air Vehicle 

WA Wassenaar Arrangement 

WAAS Wide Area Airborne Surveillance 

WAS Wide Area Surveillance 

WLAN Wireless Local Area Network 

WNW Wideband Network Waveform 

XML Extensible Markup Language 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 195 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap 

Page 196