Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

i 

3 

Corrected Copy

Approved for Open Publication 

Reference Number: 11-S-3613 

Unmanned System.s Integrated Roadm.ap 

FY2011-2036 
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

OCT 2011 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

 00-00-2011 to 00-00-2011 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036

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)

Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, & 

Logistics,Washington,DC,20301

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

108

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 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

ii

Intentionally left blank 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

THE UNMANNED SYSTEMS INTEGRATED ROADMAP 

FY2011-2036 

Frank Kendall 

Acting Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

I l l 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

iv

Intentionally left blank 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. and allied combat operations continue to highlight the value of unmanned systems in the 

modern combat environment. Combatant Commanders (CCDRs) and warfighters value the 

inherent features of unmanned systems, especially their persistence, versatility, and reduced risk 

to human life. The U.S. military Services are fielding these systems in rapidly increasing 

numbers across all domains: air, ground, and maritime. Unmanned systems provide diverse 

capabilities to the joint commander to conduct operations across the range of military operations: 

environmental sensing and battlespace awareness; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

(CBRN) detection; counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) capabilities; port security; 

precision targeting; and precision strike. Furthermore, the capabilities provided by these 

unmanned systems continue to expand. 

The Department of Defense (DoD) has been successful in rapidly developing and fielding 

unmanned systems. DoD will continue to focus on responding rapidly to CCDR requirements, 

while ensuring systems are acquired within the framework of DoD’s new wide-ranging 

Efficiencies Initiatives1

. In the fiscal environment facing the Nation, DoD, in concert with 

industry, must pursue investments and business practices that drive down life-cycle costs for 

unmanned systems. Affordability will be treated as a key performance parameter (KPP) equal to, 

if not more important than, schedule and technical performance. DoD will partner with industry 

to continue to invest in unmanned systems technologies while providing incentives for industry 

to implement cost-saving measures and rewarding industry members that routinely demonstrate 

exemplary performance. 

This document provides a DoD vision for the continuing development, fielding, and 

employment of unmanned systems technologies. Since publication of the last DoD Roadmap in 

2009, the military Services have released individual Service roadmaps or related strategy 

documents. This roadmap defines a common vision, establishes the current state of unmanned 

systems in today’s force, and outlines a strategy for the common challenges that must be 

addressed to achieve the shared vision. 

The challenges facing all military Services in the Department include: 

1) Interoperability: To achieve the full potential of unmanned systems, these systems must

operate seamlessly across the domains of air, ground, and maritime and also operate 

 

1 Better Buying Power, Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending, 

OUSD(AT&L) Memo, Dr. Ashton B. Carter, 14 September 2010.

My Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) approving formal program 

commencement of the program will contain an affordability target to be treated by 

the Program Manager like a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) such as speed, 

power, or data rate .... 

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals, Better 

Buying Power, September 20101
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

vi 

seamlessly with manned systems. Robust implementation of interoperability tenets will 

contribute to this goal while also offering the potential for significant life-cycle cost 

savings. 

2) Autonomy: Today’s iteration of unmanned systems involves a high degree of human 

interaction. DoD must continue to pursue technologies and policies that introduce a 

higher degree of autonomy to reduce the manpower burden and reliance on full-time 

high-speed communications links while also reducing decision loop cycle time. The 

introduction of increased unmanned system autonomy must be mindful of affordability, 

operational utilities, technological developments, policy, public opinion, and their 

associated constraints.

3) Airspace Integration (AI): DoD must continue to work with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to ensure unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have routine access to 

the appropriate airspace needed within the National Airspace System (NAS) to meet 

training and operations requirements. Similar efforts must be leveraged for usage of 

international airspace.

4) Communications: Unmanned systems rely on communications for command and control 

(C2) and dissemination of information. DoD must continue to address frequency and 

bandwidth availability, link security, link ranges, and network infrastructure to ensure 

availability for operational/mission support of unmanned systems. Planning and 

budgeting for UAS Operations must take into account realistic assessments of projected 

SATCOM bandwidth, and the community must move toward onboard pre-processing to 

pass only critical information.

5) Training: An overall DoD strategy is needed to ensure continuation and Joint training 

requirements are in place against which training capabilities can be assessed. Such a 

strategy will improve basing decisions, training standardization, and has the potential to 

promote common courses resulting in improved training effectiveness and efficiency. 

6) Propulsion and Power: The rapid development and deployment of unmanned systems has 

resulted in a corresponding increased demand for more efficient and logistically 

supportable sources for propulsion and power. In addition to improving system 

effectiveness, these improvements have the potential to significantly reduce life-cycle 

costs.

7) Manned-Unmanned (MUM) Teaming: Today’s force includes a diverse mix of manned 

and unmanned systems. To achieve the full potential of unmanned systems, DoD must 

continue to implement technologies and evolve tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) 

that improve the teaming of unmanned systems with the manned force. 

This Roadmap leverages individual Service roadmaps and visions, and identifies challenges 

that might stand in the way of maturing those visions to a shared Joint vision. The vignettes 

provided at the beginning of the Roadmap give the reader a glimpse into potential unmanned 

systems capabilities. They do not serve as requirements—the individual Services will continue to 

identify requirements gaps and utilize the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System 

(JCIDS) to determine which requirements to fund. The chapters that follow the vignettes identify 

core areas that are challenges for further growth in unmanned systems and chart out science, 

technology, and policy paths that will enable unmanned systems to fulfill an expanding role in 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

vii 

supporting the warfighter. Success in each of these areas is critical to achieve DoD’s shared 

vision and realize the full potential of unmanned systems at an affordable cost. 

 

... the ability to understand and control future costs from a program’s 

inception is critical to achieving affordability requirements.

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition 

Professionals, Better Buying Power, September 20101
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION/SCOPE ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................... 1

2 VISION ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Future Operational Environment ............................................................................ 3

2.2 DoD’s Vision .......................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Vignettes ................................................................................................................. 6

3 CURRENT STATE ................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Requirements Development and Systems Acquisition ......................................... 15

3.2 Unmanned Systems Applied to Joint Capability Areas ........................................ 16

3.3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ..................................................................... 21

3.4 Unmanned Ground Systems (UGS) ...................................................................... 22

3.5 Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMS) .................................................................. 24

3.6 Challenges for Unmanned Systems ...................................................................... 27

4 INTEROPERABILITY ............................................................................................ 30

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 30

4.3 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 32

4.4 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 33

4.5 The Way Ahead .................................................................................................... 33

4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 42

5 AUTONOMY ............................................................................................................ 43

5.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 43

5.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 43

5.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 44

5.4 Way Ahead............................................................................................................ 45

5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 50

6 AIRSPACE INTEGRATION (AI) .......................................................................... 52

6.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 52

6.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 53

6.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 55

6.4 Way Ahead............................................................................................................ 55

6.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 59

7 COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................. 60

7.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 60

7.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 60

7.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 62

7.4 Way Ahead............................................................................................................ 63

7.5 Future Trends ........................................................................................................ 70

7.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 71

8 TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 72

8.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 72

8.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 72

8.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 74
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

ix

8.4 Way Ahead............................................................................................................ 74

9 PROPULSION AND POWER................................................................................. 76

9.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 76

9.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 76

9.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 76

9.4 Way Ahead............................................................................................................ 77

10 MANNED-UNMANNED (MUM) TEAMING ....................................................... 82

10.1 Functional Description .......................................................................................... 82

10.2 Today’s State ........................................................................................................ 83

10.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 85

10.4 Way Ahead (2011–2036) ...................................................................................... 86

11 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 88

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES ......................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY ............................................................................................. C-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. DoD UAS ...................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2. UAS Flight Hours (1996–Present) ................................................................................ 22

Figure 3. Talon Ordnance Disposal Robot Preparing to Unearth Simulated IED ........................ 23

Figure 4. UGS FoS ........................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 5. DoD UMS FoS .............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 6. Representative DoD UAS Locations from 2010 to 2015. ............................................. 28

Figure 7. Joint Cross-Domain Interoperability. ............................................................................ 31

Figure 8. Cross-Domain Service Reuse Through an Enterprise Service Repository. .................. 36

Figure 9. OA Migration Approach................................................................................................ 41

Figure 10. Interoperability Roadmap. ........................................................................................... 42

Figure 11. Autonomy Roadmap. ................................................................................................... 51

Figure 12. Operational View. ........................................................................................................ 52

Figure 13. Incremental Approach to Regulatory Compliance. ..................................................... 56

Figure 14. UAS NAS Roadmap. ................................................................................................... 59

Figure 15. Communications Roadmap. ........................................................................................ 71

Figure 16. Training Timeline is notional. A DoD UAS Training Strategy is currently in 

development that will add specificity once developed. .......................................................... 75

Figure 17. X-51A Scram Jet. ........................................................................................................ 76

Figure 18. Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine (HEETE). .............................................. 77

Figure 19. Efficient Small-Scale Propulsion (ESSP). ................................................................... 78

Figure 20. Fuel Cell Efficiency. .................................................................................................... 80

Figure 21. Propulsion and Power Roadmap. ................................................................................ 81

Figure 22. Manned Unmanned Teaming Roadmap. ..................................................................... 87

Figure 23. Summary of Technology Roadmaps. .......................................................................... 89
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

x 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. 2011 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems ($ Mil) .............................................. 13

Table 2. DoD Unmanned Capabilities by Program ...................................................................... 18

Table 3. Four Levels of Autonomy ............................................................................................... 46
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

1 

1 INTRODUCTION/SCOPE 

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to describe a vision for the continued integration of 

unmanned systems into the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint force structure and to identify 

steps that need to be taken to affordably execute this integration. DoD has seen rapid growth, 

sparked in large part by the demands of the current combat environment, in the development, 

procurement, and employment of unmanned systems. Today’s deployed forces have seen how 

effective unmanned systems can be in combat operations. This experience has created 

expectations for expanding the roles for unmanned systems in future combat scenarios. This 

Roadmap establishes a vision for the next 25 years and outlines major areas where DoD and 

industry should focus to ensure the timely and successful adoption of unmanned systems. 

1.2 Scope

This Roadmap follows the path originally laid out in the 2007 and 2009 Roadmaps in 

addressing all three unmanned domains: air, ground, and maritime. However, this document 

deviates from the earlier editions, primarily as a result of the following: 

• An Unmanned Systems Roadmap survey conducted by the Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (OUSD(AT&L)) 

• Publication of service-specific roadmaps for unmanned systems

Shortly after the publication of the 2009 Roadmap, OUSD(AT&L) conducted a survey of key 

stakeholders and users of the Roadmap. The survey sampled a wide audience, including: Office

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Service headquarters, warfighting commands, Service 

acquisition organizations, Service laboratories, multiple Joint organizations, other government 

agencies, industry (both large and small businesses), and academia. One of the major outcomes 

of this survey was a decision to capture the catalog function of the Roadmap in a separate, online 

tool. The reason for this decision is that the online tool provides greater functionality than that of 

the two-dimensional, hard-copy catalog, including the capability for more frequent updates than 

the biennial printed Roadmap. The catalog can be found on the Unmanned Warfare Information 

Repository site at: https://extranet.acq.osd.mil/uwir/. 

The survey also helped define the audience for the 2011 edition. This Roadmap provides a 

common vision and problem set to help shape military Service investments. The document also 

describes DoD’s direction to help industry participants shape their investments, particularly with 

respect to independent research and development. 

Since the publication of the 2009 Roadmap, each military Service has developed its own 

roadmap or equivalent document (listed in Appendix A). The U.S. Air Force (USAF) released its 

“Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan” in 2009 outlining an actionable plan across the diverse 

spectrum of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, 

facilities, and policy (DOTMLPF-P). In 2009, the U.S. Army published the “Unmanned Ground 

Systems Roadmap,” providing a common resource document for Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

(USMC) stakeholders in unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). The Army released its unmanned 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

2 

aircraft systems (UAS) Roadmap in 2010, which 

established a broad vision for developing, 

organizing, and employing UAS across the 

spectrum of Army operations. In November 2009, 

the USMC published its “Concept of Operations 

for USMC Unmanned Aircraft Systems Family of 

Systems (CONOPS for USMC UAS FoS).” 

Finally, the U.S. Navy published its “Information 

Dominance Roadmap for Unmanned Systems” in 

December 2010. In light of these recent 

publications (see right), this Roadmap was

tailored to focus on common issues facing all 

Services as well as to articulate a vision for 

achieving these goals in today’s fiscal 

environment. The goal for this document is to 

serve as a single, unified source to clearly articulate the DoD common vision for unmanned 

systems and to identify a common problem set facing DoD in maximizing the military utility 

offered by these versatile and innovative systems.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

3 

... to ensure safe, effective and supportable capabilities are provided while 

meeting cost, schedule and performance. The parallel vision is to provide continuous 

improvement of unmanned system capabilities to meet current and future Warfighter 

objectives.

– Mission and Vision, Robotic Systems Joint Project Office Unmanned Ground 

Systems Roadmap, July 2009

... develop and field cost-effective USVs to enhance Naval and Joint capability 

to support: Homeland Defense, the Global War on Terror, Irregular Warfare, and 

conventional campaigns. 

– The USV vision, The Navy Unmanned Surface Vehicle Master Plan, 23 July 2007

... adopt innovative strategies to provide cost effective logistical support ... 

– Goals and Objectives, US Army Roadmap for UAS 2010-2035

... to harness increasingly automated, modular, globally connected, and 

sustainable multi-mission unmanned systems resulting in a leaner, more adaptable 

and efficient Air Force that maximizes our contribution to the Joint Force. 

– USAF vision, USAF Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047

2 VISION 

2.1 Future Operational Environment 

The strategic environment and the resulting national security challenges facing the United 

States for the next 25 years are diverse. The United States faces a complex and uncertain security 

landscape in which the pace of change continues to accelerate. The rise of new powers, the 

growing influence of nonstate actors, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other 

irregular threats, and continuing socioeconomic unrest will continue to pose profound challenges 

to international order. 

The Department of Defense’s vision for unmanned systems is the seamless integration of 

diverse unmanned capabilities that provide flexible options for Joint Warfighters while 

exploiting the inherent advantages of unmanned technologies, including persistence, size, 

speed, maneuverability, and reduced risk to human life. DOD envisions unmanned systems 

seamlessly operating with manned systems while gradually reducing the degree of human 

control and decision making required for the unmanned portion of the force structure. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

4 

The next quarter century will challenge U.S. Joint Forces with threats and 

opportunities ranging from regular and irregular wars in remote lands, to relief and 

reconstruction in crisis zones, to cooperative engagement in the global commons 

.... There will continue to be opponents who will try to disrupt the political stability 

and deny free access to the global commons that is crucial to the world’s 

economy.... In this environment, the presence, reach, and capability of U.S. 

military forces, working with like-minded partners, will continue to be called upon 

to protect our national interests.

– Joint Operating Environment 2010: Ready For Today, Preparing For Tomorrow

The future operating environment will be one of constant and accelerating 

change. Economic, demographic, resource, climate, and other trends will engender 

competition locally, regionally, and globally.... State and non-state actors will find 

new and more deadly means of conducting operations in all domains, to include 

land, air, maritime, and cyberspace to further their aims ... otherwise leveraging 

land, air, and maritime areas to ensure their freedom of movement and deny it to 

others.. 

– Joint Operational Concept, Irregular Warfare: Countering Irregular Threats

Over the next two decades, forces will operate in a geostrategic environment of considerable 

uncertainty with traditional categories of conflict becoming increasingly blurred. This era will be 

characterized by protracted confrontation among state, nonstate, and individual actors using 

violent and nonviolent means to achieve their political and ideological goals. Future adversaries 

will rely less on conventional force-on-force conflicts to thwart U.S. actions and more on tactics 

that allow them to frustrate U.S. intentions without direct confrontation. 

As technological innovation and global information flows accelerate, nonstate actors will 

continue to gain influence and capabilities that, during the past century, remained largely the 

purview of states. Chemical and biological agents will become increasingly more accessible, 

lethal and sophisticated. Both state and nonstate actors will actively pursue nuclear weapons, 

sophisticated and/or bioengineered biological agents, and nontraditional chemical agents. 

Unmanned systems can help in countering these threats by reducing risk to human life and 

increasing standoff from hazardous areas. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

5 

2.2 DoD’s Vision

The DoD, along with industry, understands the effect that innovation and technology in

unmanned systems can have on the future of warfare and the ability of the United States to adapt 

to an ever-changing global environment. DoD and industry are working to advance operational 

concepts with unmanned systems to achieve the capabilities and desired effects on missions and 

operations worldwide. In building a common vision, DoD’s goals for unmanned systems are to 

enhance mission effectiveness, improve operational speed and efficiency, and affordably close 

warfighting gaps. 

DoD is committed to harnessing the potential of unmanned systems and strengthening 

mission effectiveness while maintaining fiscal responsibility. DoD will also work on establishing 

a complementary relationship between manned and unmanned capabilities while optimizing 

commonality and interoperability across space, air, ground, and maritime domains. 

Open architecture (OA) and open interfaces need to be leveraged to address problems with 

proprietary robotic system architectures. Standards and interface specifications need to be 

established to achieve modularity, commonality, and interchangeability across payloads, control 

systems, video/audio interfaces, data, and communication links. This openness will enhance 

competition, lower life-cycle costs, and provide warfighters with enhanced unmanned 

capabilities that enable commonality and joint interoperability on the battlefield.

By prudently developing, procuring, integrating, and fielding unmanned systems, DoD and 

industry will ensure skillful use of limited resources and access to emerging warfighting 

capabilities. Pursuing this approach with unmanned systems will help DOD sustain its dominant 

global military power and provide the tools required by national decision-makers to influence 

foreign and domestic activities while adapting to an ever-changing global environment. The 

following quotation captures the breadth of the challenge: 

With the current fiscal environment of constrained budgets, affordability is a factor across the 

entire acquisition cycle and must be actively engaged by the program managers, users, trainers, 

and testers to identify problems early, and address cost throughout the life cycle. A dollar saved 

early results in hundreds of saved dollars compared to problems resolved in production or worse 

yet during operations and support. While “open systems architecture and data rights” are critical

to keeping costs in check, emphasizing the removal of obstacles to competition and the 

I speak for the Navy, that unmanned systems have to address all of the 

domains in which the Navy operates.... We operate on the surface, above the 

surface, into space, but then we operate below the surface. So when we talk 

about unmanned and ... as we knit all of this capability together and capacity 

together, it has to take into account that we're operating in all those different 

domains. 

– Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

6 

opportunities in test and evaluation (T&E) to facilitate competitive analysis is equally important 

to reduce developmental costs. 

The assembly line of activity involved in producing unmanned systems must address risk 

across the life cycle to address the new challenges of testing autonomous functionality in the 

initial stages, and evaluating the operation and support issues involved in sustainment for 

increasing reliability, availability, and maintainability. The emphasis on vignettes at a mission 

level only indirectly emphasizes the increasing need for an evolutionary capability in unmanned 

systems production that is resilient and responsive to the dynamic situation faced by today’s 

warfighter. New technology, methodologies, and human resourcing are critical for establishing

rapid acquisition environments that maximize the potential for unmanned systems production. 

2.3 Vignettes 

The following vignettes offer examples of the increased capability and flexibility inherent in 

unmanned systems as DoD continues to field unmanned technologies and integrate resulting 

systems into its existing force structure. These vignettes are not intended to present an exhaustive 

list of the possibilities, but rather to present a few examples to illustrate the vision described 

throughout this Roadmap. 

2.3.1 Interoperability Across Domains Vignette, 2030s

Location: Northern Pacific Littoral Areas 

Situation: The number and boldness of coordinated, provocative efforts between the 

Republic of Orangelandia (ROO) and the increasing number of radicalized Islamic nation-states 

within the tropic zones (± 20° latitude) have increased over the past 15 years. ROO has 

demonstrated a delivery capability for nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, and several 

radical Islamic nations now openly possess nuclear weapon technology. Although nuclear 

power’s role is expanding, oil remains the energy resource of preference even though gaining 

access to oil by Western nations has become increasingly constrained and expensive. The United 

States’ gross domestic product (GDP) is being 

challenged by China. 

Scenario: A 50-year-old, former Soviet-era, 

Akula class, nuclear-powered attack submarine 

sails out of ROO’s Molan harbor at night 

unobserved by Western reconnaissance satellites.

Movements of ROO submarines are of high 

interest due to their rarity (fewer than a dozen 

occurrences a year) and primarily due to ROO’s 

status as a rogue, nuclear-capable nation-state.

The submarine’s departure is detected by the 

underwater surveillance grid, which is monitoring 

vessel movements in and out of the ROO waters.

Ahead of the submarine, a glider unmanned 

underwater vehicle (UUV) is autonomously 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

7 

detached from the local network to intercept the faster submarine. Closing to within 50 yards as 

the submarine passes, the UUV succeeds in attaching a tether to the submarine, which begins 

pulling the UUV along (see figure right). As the submarine dives below the UUV’s operating 

depth, the UUV adjusts the tether to maintain its position close to the surface. Every three hours, 

it glides to the surface and transmits a low-power position report.

The position reports are received by an orbiting communications relay, Baton One, an EQ-25 

UAS operating at 75,000 ft in the eastern Pacific region. The EQ-25 is an extreme-endurance 

UAS, capable of operating for two months on station without refueling. As the submarine enters 

the Sea of Okhotsk and heads toward the North Pacific Ocean, U.S. military commanders are 

faced with a decision. Despite the advanced battery technology of the UUV, the battery life is 

finite; therefore, the operators have three courses of action affecting their surveillance operation: 

(1) continue surveillance by shifting the orbit of Baton One to maintain reception range on the 

UUV, which will otherwise be lost in 12 hours (2) save the UUV by detaching it when its 

remaining power is still sufficient for it to recover itself (within three days) or (3) expend the 

UUV by keeping it attached until its power is exhausted (within six days). Because ROO

submarines seldom sortie beyond the littoral seas of northeastern Asia, they decide to shift Baton 

One’s orbit and wait to decide the UUV’s fate until the submarine’s intent becomes clearer. 

By the third day, the submarine is heading toward the mid-Pacific and the Hawaiian Islands. 

Because the value of the mission exceeds the cost of the asset, the decision is made to expend the 

low-cost UUV to buy time for a naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW) ship to intercept and track 

the submarine. The following day, the submarine reverses course. Two days later, the stillattached UUV converts to beacon mode to conserve its dwindling power reserves, Baton One 

returns to its planned orbit, and the ASW ship turns for Pearl Harbor. A Broad Area Maritime 

Surveillance (BAMS) UAS, MQ-4C, is launched from Guam to track the beacon. It recovers the 

beacon’s signal and determines that it is stationary. Autonomously descending with its internal 

airborne sense and avoid (ABSAA) system to maintain “due regard,” the BAMS UAS is able to 

visually acquire the UUV, floating in mid-ocean and no longer attached to the ROO submarine 

— potentially detached by the submarine’s crew. The submarine’s position and intent are now 

unknown. 

Ten days later, a weak seismic disturbance is detected 150 miles southeast of Anchorage, 

Alaska (see map below). Several 

minutes later, a much more 

significant event registers 3.5 on the 

Richter scale. An interagency 

DoD/homeland defense 

reconnaissance UAS is launched out 

of Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) 

and detects a radiation plume 

emanating near Montague Island at 

the mouth of Prince William Sound. 

The UAS maps the plume as it begins 

spreading over the sound, and a U.S. 

Coast Guard offshore patrol cutter 

deployed from Kodiak employs its 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

8 

embarked unmanned helicopter to drop buoys with chemical, biological, radiological, and 

nuclear (CBRN) sensors in the Sound and within narrow passes to measure fallout levels. The 

plume begins to spread over the sound and threatens the city of Valdez. All vessel traffic, mainly 

oil tankers, transiting in and out of the Sound is stopped, and operations at the oil terminal are 

suspended. Oil storage facilities at the terminal are quickly filled to capacity, and the flow from 

Prudhoe Bay is shut down. The port of Valdez, the largest indigenous source of oil for the United 

States, is effectively under quarantine.

Due to the growing contamination of the local environment, disaster response officials decide 

to request the support of the military because of their experience both with operations in CBRN 

zones and with unmanned systems, which are the tools of choice because of the contamination 

hazards to personnel. The amphibious transport dock ship USS New York anchors near an 

entrance to Prince William Sound and begins operations with its unmanned surface vehicles 

(USVs) and MQ-8 detachments. An EQ-25 orbit is established over the Sound to ensure longterm, high-volume communication capability in the high-latitude, mountainous region. With data 

compression technology fielded in the transmitting and relay systems, the EQ-25 is capable of 

handling all the theater data relay requirements. A USV proceeds to the focus of contamination

and lowers a tethered remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to conduct an underwater search for the 

source. The USV’s sonar quickly locates a large object in very shallow water and, on closer 

inspection by the ROV, images the severely damaged hull of what appears to be an Akula class 

submarine. The hull is open to the sea, and the ROV places temperature gradient sensors on the 

hull and inserts gamma sensors into the exposed submarine compartments. The Joint Task Force 

that was formed to manage the disaster quickly determines that the reactor fuel core is exposed to 

the sea and that the reactor was not shut down and is still critical. Suspicion of the submarine’s 

origin centers on its being from ROO, but all evidence that this vessel is the lost Akula submarine 

is currently circumstantial. 

The radiation plume has now encompassed the evacuated town of Valdez, and MQ-8s fly 

repeated sorties to the town, dock, and terminal areas to deploy UGVs with sensors and collect 

samples for analysis. Returning USVs and MQ-8s are met and serviced by personnel in hazmat 

gear and washed down after each sortie. With conditions deteriorating, two unmanned Homeland 

Defense CBRN barges fitted with cranes, containers, and remote controls arrive from Seattle. 

USVs are stationed in the narrow straits leading into the Sound with hydrophones to broadcast 

killer whale sounds to frighten fish outside the Sound away from the contaminated area. Over the 

next two weeks, with the assistance of U.S and coalition ROVs equipped with cutting torches, 

grappling fixtures, and operating from USVs, one remotely operated submersible barge is able to 

work around the clock with impunity against exposure levels to recover the exposed fuel sources 

and to isolate them in specially designed containers. A second barge similarly retrieves sections 

of the crippled submarine. Both barges operate with a high degree of autonomy, limiting 

exposure of personnel to the radioactive contamination. 

The UGVs continue monitoring contamination levels and collecting samples, but now also 

start conducting decontamination of the oil terminal control station and the local power and 

water facilities. Highly contaminated soil is placed into steel drums, and larger UGVs are used to 

dig pits and bury contaminated building and pipeline materials. Advanced sensor technology and 

control logic allows the UGVs to operate around the clock with human operators serving solely 

in a monitoring function. USVs are used to collect carcasses floating in the Sound and bring 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

9 

them to shore for disposal. UUVs crisscross the seafloor of the Sound to locate and tag remnants 

of the submarine for later collection. Unmanned aircraft (UA) fly continuously through the 

National Airspace System (NAS) at low altitude to monitor and map the declining radiation

contours, at medium altitude to map cleanup operations, and at high altitude to relay control 

commands and data from the nearly one hundred unmanned vehicles at work. Decontamination, 

refueling, and repair shops have been established in nearby Cordova to service the vehicles and 

aircraft and on the USS New York to service the boats and submersibles. It is the largest 

coordinated use of international air, ground, and maritime unmanned systems ever conducted. 

2.3.2 African Maritime Coalition Vignette, 2030s 

Location: Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Africa

Situation: An UAS and an UUV, deployed from littoral combat ship (LCS) Freedom, are on 

patrol monitoring the littoral oil infrastructure of a developing nation-state. This nation-state has 

recently adjusted its geopolitical stance to ally itself militarily and economically with the United 

States and friendly European governments. 

Scenario: The Freedom’s UUV in its assigned patrol area detects an anomaly, a remote 

pipeline welder controlled by an unknown force. The underwater remote welder is positioning 

itself to intersect a major underwater oil pipeline. Using its organic “smart software” processing 

capability, the UUV evaluates the anomaly as a possible threat and releases a communications 

buoy that transmits an alert signal and a compressed data “snapshot” from the UUV’s onboard 

video/acoustic sensor. 

The communications buoy’s low 

probability of intercept (LPI) data are relayed 

via a small tactical unmanned aircraft system

(STUAS) to other units in the area and to the 

Joint Maritime Operations Center (JMOC) 

ashore. The commander on the LCS directs the 

UUV and the UAS to provide persistent

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) and command and control (C2) relay 

support. Simultaneously, the UAS transmits 

corroborating ISR data on a suspect vessel 

near the UUV anomaly. Thanks to a recently 

fielded, advanced technology propulsion 

upgrade, the STUAS is able to stay on station 

for 24 hours before being relieved (see graphic 

right). 

Meanwhile, the JMOC analysts recognize 

the pipeline welder in the UUV data snapshot as one recently stolen and acquired by rebel 

antigovernment forces. The JMOC then dispatches an Allied quick reaction force (QRF) via 

160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) aircraft and USAF CV-22 Osprey from a 

nearby airfield. The JMOC retasks a special warfare combatant-craft crewman (SWCC) Mk V to 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

10 

“The key to successful acquisition programs is getting things right from the start with sound

systems engineering, cost estimating, and developmental testing early in the program cycle.

The bill that we are introducing today will require the

Department of Defense to take the steps needed to put major defense acquisition programs on a

Sound footing from the outset. If these changes are successfully implemented, they should help our

acquisition programs avoid future cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems.”

–Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee

“The Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 is an important step in efforts to reform the

defense acquisition process. This legislation is needed to focus acquisition and procurement on

emphasizing systems engineering; more effective upfront planning and management of technology

risk; and growing the acquisition workforce to meet program objectives.”

–Senator John McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

investigate and neutralize the potential hostile surface vessel controlling the stolen pipeline 

welder. The SWCC Mk V launches its own small UA to provide a low-level ISR view ahead of

its navigation track while providing an LPI secure communications path among the special 

forces QRF team. The SWCC Mk V’s UA provides a real-time common data link (CDL) 

common operational picture (COP) data stream via the higher altitude UAS to the LCS and 

JMOC. 

The JMOC receives a signals intelligence (SIGINT) alert that the suspect hostile surface 

vessel is launching a Russian Tipchak, a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UA. The 

latest Tipchak variant is a hybrid UA with US-derived systems and avionics. This Tipchak is 

capable of launching short-range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) or air-to-surface missiles (ASMs). 

Its host platform, the suspect hostile vessel, has an early warning suite and has probably detected 

the LCS nearby or visually sighted the SWCC Mk V’s UA. An update to the SIGINT alert at the 

JMOC reveals the Tipchak is being launched for a surveillance sweep and counter-air/counterUA mission.

Realizing the hostile UA could pose a risk or even jeopardize the QRF, the JMOC 

commander launches a USAF MQ-1000 UA optimized for air interdiction and ground strike. The 

MQ-1000 UA, empowered by rules of engagement (ROE) allowing autonomous operation, 

immediately conducts an air-to-air engagement and neutralizes the Tipchak UA. 

The SWCC Mk V’s special forces team then conducts a visit, board, search, and seizure 

(VBSS) on the suspected hostile vessel supporting the UUV pipeline interdictor. Since the threat 

is neutralized, the unmanned systems update their patrol status, cancel the alert status, and 

recover or resume their assigned patrol sectors. 

2.3.3 Complex Unmanned Systems Test and Evaluation Scenario

As unmanned systems become more complicated, more integrated, more collaborative, and 

more autonomous, establishing test-driven development constructs and infrastructure for 

supporting early-onset test and evaluation (T&E) and life-cycle T&E will become increasingly 

critical. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 sets the stage for 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

11 

advancing T&E that will address cost saving through early-on engagement and effective 

sustainment in facilitating unmanned systems acquisition. 

The two previous vignettes have focused on the utility of unmanned systems, but it is also 

helpful to focus on unmanned systems acquisition. The acquisition of systems with increasing 

net-centricity and automated functionality will introduce unexpected levels of risk. Systems 

engineering involves decomposing a design into separable elements, characterizing the intended 

relationships between them, and verifying the system built to specification operates as intended. 

The systems engineering “V” represents decomposition and design on the downstroke and 

integration, verification, and validation on the upstroke. As systems become more complex, the 

difficulties of addressing the upstroke of the “V” increase. T&E is critical for addressing this 

risk. The systems engineering of complex systems is gets scrutinized when major problems lead 

to program delays, cost overruns, and even cancellations. The issues typically lie with 

unintended and unanticipated interactions between elements that are uncovered only during 

integration, testing, or once in service. The T&E of manned systems has created optimal 

strategies for reducing risk in the areas of frequency, performance, support systems, and safety. 

The primary challenge for today’s defense acquisition system is to execute acquisition programs 

without major schedule delays and cost overruns. Meeting that challenge has been the goal of 

acquisition reform improvements for decades. 

Unmanned systems raise new issues of artificial intelligence, communications, autonomy, 

interoperability, propulsion and power, and manned-unmanned (MUM) teaming that will 

challenge current T&E capabilities. These problems will get more serious as systems become 

more interactive and more automated. Failures often occur at the interfaces between system 

elements, in many cases, between interfaces thought to be separate. The exponential trends in 

software and network communications increasingly mean that many elements of a system can 

now affect one another. The incredible complexity of millions of lines of software requires new 

approaches for detecting problems earlier in the design phase where cost mitigation is most 

effective. As systems get much of their functionality from software and multisystem interactions, 

complexity is no longer separate and distinct. Complexity is about the whole ecosystem, and 

systems engineering has to become more holistic. Model-based systems engineering, already in 

use by the software and circuit industries, is augmenting document-driven approaches in 

important ways. Executable models can be effective conveyors of information throughout a 

supply chain. Models designed to provide contextual information about the degrees of freedom 

and the interactions could potentially pass from the Government to the prime supplier and on to 

second- and third-tier suppliers from early concept through Milestones A, B, and C into the 

operations and support phase. 

Location: DoD T&E Centers Across the World 

Situation: In a rapid acquisition support environment, integrated T&E teams work with 

trainers and the user to accelerate the production of unmanned systems. The model involves 

industries that must leverage test frameworks to take advantage of Moore’s Law advances that 

are exploitable every 18 months. The same technologies are actually subcomponents in the 

payload, communication, command system, and remote sensor support systems that currently 

compose various unmanned system of systems configurations. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

12 

Scenario: Warfighters need next-generation system capability to support an 18-month 

battlespace fielding requirement. The system involves new sensors supporting a remote sensor 

team. The platform will utilize several new algorithms to mitigate human support functions 

limited by human reaction time and communication anomalies. The platform will also have new 

decision algorithms supporting mission functions due to new payload capabilities. The system 

will use a new communication protocol evaluation system for onboard teams and for ground 

control teams communicating over a series of relay station and satcom grids. Platform support 

includes mission-driven T&E to validate autonomous support capabilities enabling nonlethal 

support functions. This migration will use technology for air traffic management that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) and DoD are co-evaluating for the automated notification of an 

aircraft’s position to ground-based controllers as well as to other manned and unmanned aircraft. 

The support situation calls for an assessment of the latest Standardization Agreement 

(STANAG) recovery algorithms in the event of communications link disruption with 

collaborating manned and unmanned systems supporting a teaming operation. Interoperability 

tests will be necessary to support several new services and remote service support teams 

translating data from the payload. The teams will leverage mission information from a variety of 

semantic databases across the Defense Grid to generate actionable intelligence. A new aspect of 

this deployment will involve the utilization of both trainers and users interacting with simulators 

to explore the adequacy of human systems integration algorithms to discover problems for 

algorithm refinement and problem discovery. Red team T&E technology will expand scenario 

assessment to provide forecasting without historical data using Bayesian probability models 

utilizing expert opinions. The T&E system will be designed to determine false positives, false 

negatives, dynamic limits, and integrity limits regarding mission effectiveness, suitability, 

survivability, and effectiveness. This wholesale advancement in T&E will result in a tenfold 

reduction in cycle time and cost. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

13 

3 CURRENT STATE

Over the past decade, unmanned systems have played an increasing role in U.S. military 

operations. DoD uses a vast array of unmanned systems, from underwater to the upper regions of 

the atmosphere, from the size of a matchbox to the size of a Boeing 737. 

These unmanned systems continue to prove their value in combat operations in Afghanistan,

where military operations are planned and executed in extremely challenging environments. 

Adversaries are fighting using increasingly unconventional means, taking cover in the 

surrounding populations, and employing asymmetric tactics to achieve their objectives. In future 

conflicts, we must be prepared for these tactics as well as a range of other novel methods, 

including so-called “hybrid” and anti-access approaches to blunting U.S. power projection. 

Unmanned systems will be critical to U.S. operations in all domains across a range of conflicts, 

both because of capability and performance advantages, and the ability for unmanned systems to 

take greater risk. 

 As unmanned systems have proven their worth on the battlefield, DoD has allocated an 

increasing percentage of its budget to developing and acquiring these systems. Table 1 below 

reflects the budget request allocated to the three unmanned domains: air, ground, and maritime. 

Table 1. 2011 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems ($ Mil) 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

RDTE 1,106.72 1,255.29 1,539.58 1,440.57 1,296.25 6,638.40

PROC 3,351.90 2,936.93 3,040.41 3,362.95 3,389.03 16,081.21

OM 1,596.74 1,631.38 1,469.49 1,577.65 1,825.45 8,100.71

6,055.36 5,823.59 6,049.48 6,381.17 6,510.72 30,820.32

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

RDTE 297.70 271.79 304.78 158.68 157.98 1,190.93

PROC 20.10 843.24 481.77 426.65 834.17 2,605.93

OM 207.06 233.58 237.50 241.50 245.96 1,165.60

524.86 1,348.61 1,024.05 826.83 1,238.11 4,962.46

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

RDTE 29.69 62.92 65.72 48.60 47.26 254.19

PROC 11.93 45.45 84.85 108.35 114.33 364.90

OM 5.79 4.71 3.76 4.00 4.03 22.28

47.41 113.08 154.32 160.94 165.62 641.37

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

RDTE 1,434.11 1,590.00 1,910.07 1,647.84 1,501.50 8,083.52

PROC 3,383.93 3,825.62 3,607.02 3,897.95 4,337.53 19,052.04

OM 1,809.59 1,869.67 1,710.75 1,823.15 2,075.44 9,288.59

6,627.63 7,285.28 7,227.85 7,368.94 7,914.46 36,424.15

Unmanned Funding ($ Mil)

All Unmanned

Domain Total

Fiscal Year Defense Prog

Fiscal Year Defense Prog

Fiscal Year Defense Prog

Fiscal Year Defense Prog

Domain Total

Air

Ground

Domain Total

Sea

Domain Total
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

14 

Although unmanned systems have experienced widespread growth in funding, current world 

economic conditions and DoD initiatives necessitate increased efforts and focus toward the 

acquisition of affordable and convergent systems. DoD must continue to support diverse mission 

sets and capabilities, but must focus on acquiring Joint and interoperable platforms, systems, 

software, architecture, payloads and sensors due to today’s increasingly austere fiscal 

environment. In addition, the ability for commanders to take risks with unmanned vehicles 

depends significantly on their cost. In order to be expendable, which is often the intent of 

building an unmanned system, the vehicle must be low-cost. The importance of procuring 

common platforms with core C2 systems cannot be overstated as it will yield enormous 

collective benefits by reducing training costs, reducing supply chain diversity, improving 

availability, and offering a cost-effective procurement path by exploiting the benefits of scale 

and software/technology reuse. 

The cost overruns, schedule slips, and sustainability issues of unmanned systems cannot go 

unnoticed or unanswered. Operational T&E is not sufficient for addressing budget, schedule, and 

sustainment issues in unmanned systems acquisition. WSARA 2009 guidance set the stage for 

leveraging developmental T&E as a key factor in T&E strategy to address Milestone A and B 

test challenges. Unmanned system T&E must not only consider physics effects but other areas 

that have an effect on algorithm development such as human factors, autonomous functionality, 

peering, collaboration, and autonomy-driven, red-team-based T&E limit testing. The goal to 

gradually reduce the degree of human control and decision making required for the unmanned 

portion of the force structure will mean that autonomous functionality will gradually increase

and new ways to test this functionality will be required. 

The need to maintain simplicity and overcome bureaucracy in unmanned system acquisition 

is an ongoing challenge. As these programs transition to acquisition programs, there is a unique 

opportunity to enable productive process and oversight appropriate to producing safe, suitable, 

survivable, and effective systems in a rapid acquisition framework. 

There is a need to leverage OA and open interfaces to overcome the problems associated

with proprietary robotic system architectures. Standards and interface specifications need to be 

established to achieve modularity, commonality, and interchangeability across payloads, control 

systems, video/audio interfaces, data, and communication links. Standardization will enhance 

competition, lower life-cycle costs, and provide warfighters with enhanced unmanned 

capabilities that enable commonality and joint interoperability on the battlefield. 

Eliminate redundancy within warfighter portfolios. 

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition 

Professionals, Better Buying Power, September 2010
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

15 

Addressing factors inhibiting the growth of unmanned systems will provide more 

interoperability, more autonomy, better artificial intelligence, better communications, human 

systems integration, training standardization, more propulsion and power options, and better 

MUM teaming. These factors are addressed through the Joint Capability Integration and 

Development System (JCIDS) process.

3.1 Requirements Development and Systems Acquisition

There has been substantial growth in unmanned platforms of all sizes and shapes with a 

corresponding increase in payload numbers and capability. Many of these systems have been 

rapidly acquired and immediately fielded for warfighter use through the Joint Urgent Operational 

Needs (JUON) process. JUONs have successfully added significant capability to joint 

warfighting. While those unmanned systems were rapidly developed to meet the immediate 

needs of the warfighter in the short term, they have not undergone rigorous requirements review 

and joint coordination through the normal JCIDS process, to include systems interdependencies 

and interoperability. Further, their long term affordability, sustainability, and potential to 

contribute to long term enterprise-wide capability portfolios have not been fully considered. 

Consequently, they have not received due consideration in the context of broader joint capability 

areas (JCA) which provide structure and organization to Requirements Development. 

DoD is moving toward revision of the JCIDS process which will streamline urgent and 

deliberate Capability Development to enable requisite timeliness in meeting warfighter needs, 

while giving important consideration to long term affordability and sustainability. JCIDS is a 

key supporting process for DoD acquisition and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 

Execution (PPBE) processes. It ensures the capabilities required by the warfighter are identified 

with their associated operational performance criteria in order to successfully execute the 

missions assigned. This process allows better understanding of the warfighting needs early in 

capability development and provides a more comprehensive set of valid prioritized requirements. 

The Department’s acquisition arm can then focus on choosing options to meet well defined 

requirement capability.

Given today’s highly constrained fiscal environment, it is imperative that the Department

look at many areas where efficiencies can be gained to create unmanned systems that are both 

effective and affordable. The DoD will look at capitalizing upon commonality, standardization, 

and joint acquisition strategies among others. Also, the Department demands these unmanned 

systems be affordable at the outset and not experience significant cost growth in their 

development and production evolution. Additionally, it must provide the PPBE process with 

affordability advice by assessing the development and production lifecycle cost at the outset.

Capability requirements, validated by the JCIDS process, inform prioritization activities in 

the competition for funding during the PPBE process. The objective of the PPBE process is to 

provide the best mix of forces, equipment, and support attainable within fiscal constraints 

according to DoD Directive 7045.14, Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS). To 

meet this objective, the PPBE process aims to meet goals established by the President and the 

Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) in the Strategic Planning and Joint Planning Guidance. In the 

PPBE process, the Services match available resources (fiscal, manpower, material) against 

validated requirements to achieve the strategic plan. A key task is to develop a 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

16 

balanced/affordable capabilities-based Service program objective memorandum (POM). The 

POM position for the capability to meet a given requirement is reviewed by OSD and the final 

position becomes the President’s Budget. 

The Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)

2

3.2 Unmanned Systems Applied to Joint Capability Areas

are currently the preferred method the Department of 

Defense uses for reviewing and managing capabilities. The JCA framework provides the 

structure around which capabilities and capability gaps can be aligned across the Department and 

across the various portfolios to correlate similar needs, leverage effective solutions, and 

synchronize related activities. Also, various frameworks, such as the Universal Joint Task List 

(UJTL), are readily available to aid in identifying and organizing the tasks, conditions and 

required capabilities. 

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. Nine Tier One JCAs are defined, and assessments identified that unmanned 

systems have the potential to be key contributors for Battlespace Awareness, Force Application, 

Protection, Logistics, and Building Partnerships. Although assessments have not yet been 

completed for the Force Support and Net Centric capability areas, missions and tasks in those 

JCAs receive significant support from unmanned systems as well. 

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. 

Detailed descriptions of each of the systems identified for the capability areas, including specific 

tasks, performance attributes and integrated technologies can be found at the Unmanned Warfare 

Information Repository site: https://extranet.acq.osd.mil/uwir/. Below are the descriptions for 

the most relevant JCA.

3.2.1 Battlespace Awareness (BA)

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

ability to significantly contribute well into the future to conduct ISR and environment collection 

related tasks. To achieve this, unmanned systems development and fielding must include the 

Tasking, Production, Exploitation, and Dissemination (TPED) processes required to translate vast 

quantities of sensor data into a shared understanding of the environment. There are many ongoing 

efforts to streamline TPED processing. Applications in this JCA 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 tasks such as Expeditionary Runway 

Evaluation, Nuclear Forensics, and Special Reconnaissance. In the future, technology will enable 

 

2 http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

17 

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

systems with their own organic perception will contribute to Battle Space Awareness regardless of 

their intended primary mission. 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.

3.2.2 Force Application (FA)

Force Application is another JCA which includes a proliferation of unmanned systems 

contributing to maneuver and engagement. Today, Predator, Reaper and Gray Eagle 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 domain, 

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 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.

DoD personnel must comply with the law of war, including when using autonomous or 

unmanned weapon systems. For example, Paragraph 4.1 of DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law 

of War Program, May 9, 2006, requires that: "[m]embers of the DoD Components comply with 

the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all

other military operations." Current armed unmanned systems deploy lethal force only in a fully 

human-operated context (level 1) for engagement decisions. For these systems, the decisions 

both to employ force and to choose which specific target to engage are made by a human. The 

United States operates defensive systems for manned ships and installations that have humansupervised autonomous modes (level 3), and has operated these systems for decades. For the 

foreseeable future, decisions over the use of force and the choice of which individual targets to 

engage with lethal force will be retained under human control in unmanned systems. 

3.2.3 Protection

Protection has particular unmanned systems applicability to assist in attack prevention or 

effects mitigation. Unmanned systems are ideally suited for many protection tasks that are 

deemed dull, dangerous or dirty. 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, sophisticated explosive ordnance disposal, casualty extraction and evacuation, and 

maritime interdiction. In the Protection JCA teaming within domains and collaboration across 

domains will likely prevail.

3.2.4 Logistics

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

all domains to deploy, distribute, and supply forces. Transportation of supplies is an applicable, 

routine task, particularly suited for unmanned systems in all types of ground terrain. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

18 

System Lead Service Primary JCA Mission Capabilities ACAT Acquisition Status

RQ-16B T_Hawk US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA, EOD

NonACAT Other

Wasp US Air Force BA ISR/RSTA

NonACAT Other

RQ-11B Raven US Army BA ISR/RSTA IV(T) Production

Puma AE USSOCOM N/A ISR/RSTA, FP III Production/Sustainment

Scan Eagle

US Navy , US 

Marines N/A ISR/RSTA, Force Protection

NonACAT Other

RQ-7B Shadow

US Army, US 

Marines BA ISR/RSTA, C3, Force Protection II Production

S 100 USSOCOM N/A ISR/RSTA, EW, Force Protection III Design &Development

STUAS RQ-21A

US Navy , US 

Marines BA ISR/RSTA, EOD, Force Protection III Design &Development

Viking 400 USSOCOM N/A ISR/RSTA, EW, Force Protection III Design &Development

MQ-5B Hunter US Army N/A ISR/RSTA, C3, Log, PS/TCS, FP N/A Other

MQ-1C Gray Eagle US Army BA ISR/RSTA, C3, Log, PS/TCS, FP I D Production

MQ-1B Predator US Air Force BA ISR/RSTA, PS/TCS, FP I D Sustainment

MQ-8B VTUAV US Navy ISR/RSTA, ASW, SUW/ASUW, I C MS-C

MQ-4 BAMS US Navy ISR/RSTA, EW, PS/TCS, SUW/ASUW, FP I D Design &Development

MQ-9A Reaper US Air Force FA ISR/RSTA, EW, PS/TCS, FP I D Production

RQ-4A Global Hawk US Air Force BA ISR/RSTA, C3, PS/TCS I D Sustainment

RQ-4B Global Hawk US Air Force BA ISR/RSTA, C3, PS/TCS I D Production/Sustainment

MR UAS US Navy N/A TBD N/A Concept

UCLASS US Navy N/A TBD N/A Concept

MQ-X US Air Force FA ISR/RSTA, PS/TCS, FP N/A Concept

Group 4 US Marines N/A TBD N/A Concept

AIRCRAFT

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

GROUP 5

Maintenance related tasks such as inspection, decontamination, and refueling can be performed 

by unmanned systems. Munitions and material handling, and combat engineering are ideal tasks 

that can be allocated to unmanned systems to enhance safety as well as increase efficiency. 

Additionally, casualty evacuation and care, human remains evacuation, and urban rescue can

also be tasks performed by unmanned systems. Unmanned systems will perform Logistics tasks 

on home station as well as forward deployed. 

Table 2. DoD Unmanned Capabilities by Program below is a sample mapping of JCA tasks 

to the current unmanned inventory and is provided for determining current unmanned systems 

capabilities. 

Table 2. DoD Unmanned Capabilities by Program 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

19 

Table 2. DoD Unmanned Capabilities by Program (continued) 

System Lead Service Primary JCA Mission Capabilities ACAT Acquisition Status

MARCbot IV N US Army N/A ISR/RSTA, IED Inv. Other Other

Throwbot US Army N/A ISR/RSTA Other Other

Mine Area 

Clearance 

Equipment (MACE) US Air Force N/A Mine, EOD, FP Other Concept

Defender US Air Force N/A FA, FP, Fire Other Concept

ISR UGV US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA, Fire Support, EOD Other Other

xBot US Army N/A ISR/RSTA, EOD, IED Inv. Other Other

PackBot FIDO US Army N/A ISR/RSTA, EOD, IED Inv. Other Other

M 160 US Army N/A Mine Neutralization III Design &Development

RC50 60 US Army N/A EOD, Mine Neutralization Other Other

Mini EOD US Army N/A EOD Other Other

ANDROS HD 1 US Army N/A EOD Other Other

PackBot EOD US Army N/A EOD Other Other

TALON IIIB US Army N/A EOD, route clearance Other Other

TALON IV US Army N/A EOD, route clearance Other Other

Panther II US Army N/A EOD, Mine Neutralization Other Other

MK 1 MOD 0 Robot 

EOD US Navy N/A EOD IV Sustainment

MK 2 MOD 0 Robot 

EOD US Navy N/A EOD IV Sustainment

MK 2 MOD 0 RONS US Navy N/A EOD IV Sustainment

All-Purpose Remote 

Transport System 

(ARTS) US Air Force N/A Mine, EOD, FP, Fire Other Other

F6A ANDROS US Air Force N/A EOD Other Other

HD 1 US Air Force N/A EOD Other Other

IVAN US Air Force N/A EOD, FP Other Concept

GROUND VEHICLES

WHEEL

TRACK
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

20 

Table 2. DoD Unmanned Capabilities by Program (continued). 

System Lead Service Primary JCA Mission Capabilities ACAT Acquisition Status

Autonomous 

Unmanned Surface 

Vehicle (AUSV) US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA Other Other

Mine 

Countermeasures 

(MCM) Unmanned 

Surface Vehicle USV US Navy BA MIW/OMCM Other Concept

Anti-Submarine 

Warfare (ASW) 

Unmanned Surface 

Vehicle (USV) US Navy N/A ASW Other Other

Sea Fox US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA, FP Other Other

Remote 

Minehunting System 

(RMS), AN/WLD1(V)1 US Navy BA MIW/OMCM I D Design &Development

Modular Unmanned 

Surface Craft 

Littoral US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA Other Other

Sea Stalker US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA Other Other

Sea Maverick US Navy N/A ISR/RSTA Other Other

Echo Ranger Commercial N/A Insp/ID, Oceanogrpahic Survey Other Other

Marlin Commercial N/A Insp/ID, Oceanogrpahic Survey Other Other

Surface 

Countermeasure 

Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle US Navy BA MIW/OMCM III Concept

MK18 Mod 2 

Kingfish UUV 

System US Navy Protection SUW/ASUW, MIW/OMCM, Insp/ID PIP Production

Surface Mine 

Countermeasure 

Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle 

User Operational 

Evaluation System 

Increment 2 US Navy N/A MIW/OMCM Other Other

Surface Mine 

Countermeasure 

Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle 

User Operational 

Evaluation System 

Increment 1 US Navy N/A MIW/OMCM Other Other

Battlespace 

Preparation 

Autonomous 

Underwater Vehicle 

(BPAUV) US Navy N/A MIW/OMCM Other Other

HULS US Navy Protection MIW/OMCM, EOD, Insp/ID

Abbr 

Acq Production

MK18 Mod 1 

Swordfish UUV 

System US Navy Protection MIW/OMCM, EOD, Insp/ID

Abbr 

Acq Sustainment

Large Displacement 

Unmanned 

Underwater Vehicle 

(LDUUV) US Navy ASW, ISR, MCM Other Concept

MK18 Mod 1 

Swordfish UUV 

System US Navy MIW/OMCM, EOD, Insp/ID

Abbr 

Acq Sustainment

UNDERWATER

MARITIME CRAFT

SURFACE
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

21 

3.3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

 The air domain has received the greatest concentration of visibility as DoD has embraced 

unmanned technologies. Table 1 depicts that UAS investments will continue to consume a large 

share of the overall DoD investment in unmanned systems. These efforts have fielded a large 

number of UAS capable of executing a wide range of missions. Originally, UAS missions 

focused primarily on tactical reconnaissance; however, this scope has been expanded to include 

most of the capabilities within the ISR and battlespace awareness mission areas. UAS are also 

playing a greater role in strike missions as the military departments field multiple strike missioncapable weapon systems for time-critical targeting. Figure 1 below illustrates the variety of 

platforms in today’s force structure. 

Figure 1. DoD UAS

As the number of fielded systems has expanded, flight hours have dramatically increased as 

depicted in Figure 2. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

22 

... remotely piloted vehicles have flown more than 21,000 sorties so far 

this year, already surpassing the roughly 19,000 drone flights last year. 

– “U.S. Uses Attacks to Nudge Taliban Toward a Deal,” New York 

Times, October 15, 2010.

Figure 2. UAS Flight Hours (1996–Present)3

In 2009, DoD completed almost 500,000 UAS flight hours just in support of Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In May 2010, unmanned systems surpassed one 

million flight hours and in November 2010 achieved one million combat hours. As these systems 

continue to demonstrate their value, this number will continue to grow. 

3.4 Unmanned Ground Systems (UGS) 

Since operations in Iraq and Afghanistan began, DoD has acquired and deployed thousands 

of UGS. These systems support a diverse range of operations including maneuver, maneuver 

support, and sustainment. Maneuver operations include closing with and neutralizing the enemy 

using speed and firepower. Maneuver support missions include mitigating natural and artificial 

obstacles and hazards. Sustainment missions leverage maintenance and support UGVs associated 

with combat services support. 

Approximately 8,000 UGVs of various types have seen action in Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. As of September 2010, these deployed UGVs have been 

used in over 125,000 missions, including suspected object identification and route clearance, to 

locate and defuse improvised explosive devices (IEDs). During these counter-IED missions, 

 

3 Updated 30 June 2011.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

23 

On Gordon’s (UGV) final days, he was launched out of the truck and was 

searching an intersection for a possible deep buried IED. As he was on his way to the 

intersection, the IED was detonated about 10 ft from his location. Still functioning, he 

continued to search the area. On the opposite side of the road, another IED was 

detonated and had turned him upside down. Everything was still working until a fire 

fight started.

Gordon took 7 rounds to the underside and was done for the day. I took him to the 

robot shop for repair. It took 3 days. When he was returned to us, I put him back in the 

truck to get him back on duty. But this was shortly lived as he was searching a gate at a 

house for possible booby-traps that detonated directly next to him. Gordon was 

mangled beyond repair. Now his replacement “Flash” is here to finish his job. 

-- Insight from an End User: “Gordon” TALON Defeats IEDs and Saves Lives in 

Baghdad, submitted by an EOD operator, summer 2007, Iraq.

Army, Navy, and USMC explosive ordnance teams detected and defeated over 11,000 IEDs 

using UGVs, such as the one depicted in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Talon Ordnance Disposal Robot Preparing to Unearth Simulated IED 

The lessons collected on the battlefield must be translated into programs that can be 

sustained. The rapid fielding and proliferation of unmanned systems and the subsequent 

battlefield modernization they provided have met the mission, but resulted in configuration and 

maintenance challenges. These ground systems continue to provide tremendous benefit to the 

ground commander, but improvements in user interfaces, reliability, survivability, and advances 

in 360° sensing, recording fidelity, and CBRN and explosive detection are required to meet the 

challenges anticipated in future conflicts. Figure 4 shows the UGS Family of Systems (FoS). 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

24 

USVs, along with UUVs, will have an important role in the conduct of MCM [mine 

countermeasures] as they are particularly well suited for the ‘dirty - dull - dangerous’ 

tasks that MCM entails. They provide persistence, which permits significant mine 

hunting and sweeping coverage at lower cost by multiplying the effectiveness of 

supporting or dedicated platforms. Additionally, they provide the potential for 

supporting an MCM capability on platforms not traditionally assigned a mine warfare 

mission.

– USV mission descriptions, The Navy Unmanned Surface Vehicle Master Plan, 

23 July 2007

Unmanned Ground Systems

Mission Areas Air Force Army Navy Other 

Maneuver

Neutralize the enemy:

• IED Defeat Systems

• Disarm / Disrupt

• Reconnaissance

• Investigation

• Explosive Sniffer

Maneuver

Support

Mitigate obstacles and 

hazards:

• Area/Route Clearance

• Mine Neutralization

• Counter IED

• CBRNE

Sustainment

Maintain and support:

• Common Robotic Kit

• EOD

• Convoy

• Log/Resupply SOCOM - Autonomous 

Expeditionary Support 

Platform (AESP) 

DARPA - Legged Squad 

Support System 

Local Area Network Droids 

(LANdroids) ISR UGV 

(Chaos Gold)

SOF Beach 

Reconnaissance UGV 

TALON IIIB

TALON IV 

TALON/PackBot EOD

Andros HD-1 R-Gator

RC50/60 Mini-EOD 

Mk1 Mod 0 Robot EOD 

Mk2 Mod 0, Robot EOD 

Mk3, Mod 0, Remote 

Ordinance Neutralization 

System (RONS) 

Advanced EOD Robotic 

System (AEODRS)

Panther II

MV-4B

Throwbot

xBOT / 

PackBot FIDO

MARCbot IV-N

Immediate Visualization & 

Neutralization (IVAN) 

Mine Area Clearance 

Equipment (MACE) 

Defender

F6A-ANDROS / HD-1

All-Purpose Remote 

Transport Sys (ARTS) 

Figure 4. UGS FoS 

3.5 Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMS) 

Over 90% of the information, people, goods, and services that sustain and create 

opportunities for regional economic prosperity flow across the maritime domain. With emerging 

threats such as piracy, natural resource disputes, drug trafficking, and weapons proliferation, a 

rapid response capability is needed in all maritime regions. DoD continues to expand the range 

of missions supported by unmanned systems in the maritime domain. A recent study concluded 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

25 

that unmanned maritime systems “have the potential to provide critical enabling capabilities for 

current NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] maritime missions that can improve 

Alliance security and stability”.

4

Like UAS and UGS, UMS have the potential to save lives, reduce human risk, provide 

persistent surveillance, and reduce operating costs. UMS priority missions are listed below. 

 

UMS can be defined as unmanned vehicles that 

displace water at rest and can be categorized into two 

subcategories: unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) and 

unmanned surface vehicles (USV). USVs are UMS that 

operate with near-continuous contact with the surface of 

the water, including conventional hull crafts, hydrofoils, 

and semi-submersibles.5

The use of UMS is not new. After World War II, USVs were used to conduct minesweeping 

missions and test the radioactivity of water after each atomic bomb test. Another example 

occurred during the Vietnam War in an area south of Saigon, where remotely controlled USVs 

conducted minesweeping operations. More recently, UUVs conducted mine-clearing activities 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. A complementary suite of UMS serve as the 

foundation for MCM operations from the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and small diameter UUVs 

are currently the main mine detection capability for ports & harbor and in the Very Shallow 

Water zone.

UUVs are made to operate 

without necessary contact with the surface (but may need 

to be near surface for communications purposes) and some 

can operate covertly. 

At a recent Science and Technology Conference hosted by the Office of Naval Research, 

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Gary Roughead made a number of statements 

expressing UMS goals for the Department of the Navy. Solving the power consumption problem 

would be the “one thing” CNO would most like to see the Navy’s scientists accomplish.6

Figure 5 illustrates the variety of platforms and maritime missions supporting today’s 

operations by UMS and those planned for operation in the near future. They have the potential 

Rear 

Admiral Nevin Carr, Chief of Naval Research, explained the current efforts in filling the needs in 

this unmanned maritime area and went on to describe where and how this technology might be 

applied in the future: “Two options are under exploration: fuel-cell technologies and radioscope 

thermoelectric generators that can provide low amounts of power for very long periods of time. 

We might start thinking about setting up drone refueling stations. You might deploy a remotely 

manned underwater generator that sits on the bottom in a secure area, which is a secure location 

where your forward-deployed vehicles might come back and recharge.” 

 

4 The Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence (CJOS/COE) Study (2009) for Maritime 

Unmanned Systems (MUS) in NATO, 8 December 2009. 

5 Consistent with Navy USV Master Plan, 2007.

6 Ackerman, Spencer, Navy Chief Presses Nerds to Power Up Undersea Drones, Danger Room, Wired.com, 

8 November 2010. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

26 

for even greater integration, especially UUVs, to the point of assisting the current submarine and 

surface fleet in replacing fixed underwater sensor grids; using UUVs and distributed netted 

sensors to expand our submarine’s sphere of influence; and weaponizing UUVs. 

However, there are currently limitations to realizing the full potential of UMS:

• Endurance 

• Underwater C2 and deconfliction

• Survivability in an unforgiving environment 

• Launch and recovery

• Communication technology for dynamic tasking, querying, and data dissemination 

These challenges are areas for further technical exploration. Despite these challenges, the 

future for UMS is very promising. Building on the experience and contribution from this first 

generation of fielded UMS, the shift is underway from UMS merely serving as an extension of 

the sensor systems of manned ships and submarines into an integrated FoS to provide full 

mission capabilities with increased autonomy.

Figure 5. DoD UMS FoS
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

27 

Interoperability

Autonomy

Airspace Integration

Communications

Training

Propulsion and Power

Manned-unmanned (MUM) Teaming

A

f

f

o

r

d

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

CHALLENGES

3.6 Challenges for Unmanned Systems 

The number of fielded systems and the range of 

missions supported by unmanned systems continue to 

grow at a dramatic rate. As DoD steers a path toward the 

vision described in Section 2, the challenges listed on the 

right must be overcome in order to realize the full 

potential offered by unmanned systems. The following 

subsections summarize these challenges and the 

remainder of this document provides details and future 

goals for dealing with each challenge. 

3.6.1 Interoperability 

To maximize the potential of unmanned systems, the systems must be capable of operating 

seamlessly with each other and with manned systems across the air, ground, and maritime 

domains. System interoperability is critical in achieving these objectives and requires the 

implementation of mandated standards and Interoperability Integrated Product Team (I-IPT) 

profiles. Properly implemented, interoperability can serve as a force multiplier, improve joint 

warfighting capabilities, decrease integration timelines, simplify logistics, and reduce total 

ownership costs (TOC). One of the most powerful tools in maximizing interoperability and 

achieving these objectives is the adoption of the open systems architecture concept.

3.6.2 Autonomy 

The rapid proliferation of unmanned systems and the simultaneous operation of manned and 

unmanned systems as unmanned systems expand into additional roles have created a manpower 

burden on the Services. With limited manpower resources to draw upon, the Services are 

seeking ways to improve the efficiency of operations. For instance, introducing a greater degree 

of system autonomy will better enable one operator to control more than one unmanned system, 

and has the potential to significantly reduce the manpower burden. Additional benefits are 

greatly reducing high bandwidth communication needs and decreasing decision cycle time.

Similar efficiencies can be gained by automating the tasking, processing, exploitation, and 

distribution (TPED) of data collected by unmanned systems. Autonomy can help extend vehicle 

endurance by intelligently responding to the surrounding environmental conditions (e.g., 

exploit/avoid currents) and appropriately managing onboard sensors and processing (e.g., turn 

off sensors when not needed). Implementing a higher degree of autonomy faces the following 

challenges: 

• Investment in science and technology (S&T) to enable more capable autonomous operations

• Development of policies and guidelines on what decisions can be safely and ethically delegated 

and under what conditions

• Development of new Verification and Validation (V&V) and T&E techniques to enable verifiable 

“trust” in autonomy
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

28 

3.6.3 Airspace Integration (AI)

The rapid increase in fielded UAS has created a strong demand for access within the NAS

and international airspace. The demand for airspace to test new systems and train UAS operators 

has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for military operations. Figure 6 shows the 

projected number of DoD UAS locations in the next six years, many without access to airspace 

compatible for military operations under the current regulatory environment.

2011 2017 

Figure 6. Representative DoD UAS Locations from 2011 to 2017. 

NAS access for UAS is currently limited primarily due to regulatory compliance issues and 

interim policies. DoD UAS operations conducted outside of restricted, warning, and prohibited 

areas are authorized only under a (temporary) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)

from the FAA. The COA process is adequate for enabling a small number of flights, but does not 

provide the level of airspace access necessary to accomplish the wide range of DoD UAS 

missions at current and projected operational tempos (OPTEMPOs). This constraint will only be 

exacerbated as combat operations in Southwest Asia wind down and systems are returned to U.S. 

locations. 

3.6.4 Communications 

Current unmanned systems operations involve a high degree of human interaction with the 

systems via various means for C2 and transmission of operational data. Protection of these 

communication links and the information flowing through them is critical to these operations. As 

the number of fielded systems grows, communications planners face challenges such as 

communication link security, radio frequency spectrum availability, deconfliction of frequencies 

and bandwidth, network infrastructure, and link ranges. Intelligent means of data parsing is 

needed to enable TPED and counter communication challenges. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

29 

3.6.5 Training 

The rapid proliferation of numbers and types of UAS in response to wartime demand coupled 

with an expected redeployment of forces back to a peacetime footing will result in continuation 

training greater than what has been required in the past. This has caused pause to examine UAS 

training and to develop an overall strategy. At present, due to high demand for UAS assets in 

real world contingencies, most day-to-day, continuation training is accomplished under in-theater 

combat conditions. At the same time, disparate efforts by a number of organizations across the 

Department are underway to try to address UAS training requirements. As UAS forces 

drawdown in theater and redeploy, the Services will require comprehensive continuation and 

Joint force training in the peacetime environment at UAS bed-down and selected Joint training 

locations. 

3.6.6 Propulsion and Power

The dramatic increase in the development and deployment of unmanned systems across the 

entire spectrum of air, ground, and maritime missions has led to a concurrent increase in the 

demand for efficient, powerful, often portable, and logistically supportable solutions for 

unmanned system propulsion and power plant requirements. As these systems continue to 

demonstrate their value, operators want them to function longer without refueling and to do more 

tasks; these demands tax the internal power sources. The laboratories of the military Services and 

industry are focusing their efforts to find efficient solutions to the demand for improved 

propulsion and power plants. Regardless of energy source, total vehicle design, from materials 

used to autonomous response to the physical environment, needs to be considered up front to 

maximize endurance.

3.6.7 Manned-Unmanned (MUM) Teaming 

MUM teaming refers to the relationship established between manned and unmanned systems 

executing a common mission as an integrated team. U.S. military forces have demonstrated early 

progress in integrating unmanned systems within the existing manned force structure, but much 

more needs to be done to achieve the full potential offered by unmanned technology. Improving

MUM teaming is both a technology challenge (such as connecting the systems) and a policy 

challenge (such as establishing the rules of engagement for operating semi-autonomous 

unmanned with manned systems). 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

30 

4 INTEROPERABILITY

4.1 Overview

There is a clear benefit for warfighters to be able to seamlessly command, control, 

communicate with, exploit and share sensor information from unmanned systems across multiple 

domains. The Unmanned Systems Interoperability Initiative (UI2) led by the OSD UAS Task 

Force is in the process of developing an overarching strategy for increasing unmanned systems 

interoperability, with the long-range vision of producing a strategy that can be leveraged across 

the full spectrum of both unmanned and manned systems. DoD’s goal is to move from 

Service/Agency-unique, stand-alone capabilities toward substantially improved interoperability 

standards that lead to an improved collaborative operational environment. 

4.2 Functional Description

Interoperability is the ability to operate in synergy in the execution of assigned tasks.7

Properly implemented, it can serve as a force multiplier, improve warfighter capabilities, 

decrease integration timelines, simplify logistics, and reduce TOC. DoD Directive (DODD)

5000.1 establishes the requirement to acquire systems and FoSs that are interoperable.8

• Among similar components of the same or different systems. The plug-and-play use of 

different sensors on an unmanned vehicle. 

DoD’s 

unmanned systems will need to demonstrate interoperability in a number of areas: 

• Among different systems of the same modality. An open common ground control station 

(GCS) architecture for multiple, heterogeneous unmanned vehicles. 

• Among systems of different modalities. The ability of air, ground, and maritime vehicles 

to work cooperatively. 

• Among systems operated by different Military Departments under various CONOPS and 

TTP, i.e., in joint operations. Joint service systems working in concert to execute a 

common task or mission. 

 

7 Definition found in Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms, 12 April 2001 (as amended through 17 March 2009).

8 DODD 5000.1, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.10.

Lack of UAV interoperability has had a real-life impact on U.S. operations ... there 

have been cases where a Service’s UAV, if it could have gotten data to another Service, 

another component, it may have provided better situational awareness on a specific threat 

in a specific area that might have resulted in different measures being taken. 

– Dyke Weatherington (PSA/UW)
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

31 

• Among systems operated and employed by coalition and allied militaries under the 

governance of various concepts of employment (CONEMPs), TTPs, e.g., in multinational 

combined operations or NATO STANAGs. The ability of coalition and allied systems to 

work in concert to execute a common task or mission based on predefined roles and 

responsibilities.

• Among military systems and systems operated by other entities in a common 

environment. The ability of military UAS to share the NAS and international airspace 

with commercial airliners and general aviation.

• Among systems operated by non-DoD organizations, Allies, and coalition partners, i.e., 

in combined operations. The ability of assets from organizations such as Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate, 

interoperate, and exchange information with DoD assets of the same modality and same 

model. 

The Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence (JUAS COE)9

Figure 7

maintains the 

Joint CONOPS for UAS, which provides a joint vision for the operation, integration, and 

interoperability of UAS and touches on several of the areas mentioned above. illustrates 

joint, cross-domain interoperability.

Figure 7. Joint 

Cross-Domain 

Interoperability. 

 

9 JCOE is being disbanded June 2011 and its tasks are being transferred to the Joint Staff.

The interoperability goal for Unmanned Systems is an ability to provide 

data, information, material, and services to and accept the same from other 

systems, units, or forces ... and to use the exchanged data, information, 

material, and services to enable them to operate effectively together.

Common Control

Common Automation

Common Data
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

32 

4.3 Today’s State

The historical approach to software and hardware acquisition relied on dedicated design for 

each system to accomplish a specific mission or capability. This approach may be optimal for a 

single system, but it unfortunately produces a collection of discrete, disjointed solutions with 

significant functional overlap and no method to exploit common components of each system.

Open architecture (OA) facilitates interoperability between systems by effectively leveraging 

the following concepts: 

• Common capability descriptions in system requirements 

• Common, open data models, standards, interfaces, and architectures in system design

• Common components in system acquisition strategies

OSD defines OA as a multifaceted strategy providing a framework for developing joint 

interoperable systems that adapt and exploit open-system design principles and architectures.

This framework includes a set of principles, processes, and best practices that: 

• Provide more opportunities for competition and innovation 

• Rapidly field affordable, interoperable systems 

• Minimize total ownership cost 

• Optimize total system performance

• Yield systems that are easily developed and upgradeable 

• Achieve component software reuse10

These (predominantly) acquisition issues are aided by a solid framework for software, 

component, and systems interoperability. 

Traditionally, efforts have focused on system 

functionality descriptions, with interoperability 

focused at the messaging layer (e.g., the Joint 

Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) and 

STANAG 4586) to achieve standards-based 

interoperability. However, the tenets of common 

definitions and understanding listed on the left are 

required to achieve a true plug-and-play level of 

interoperability in which software capabilities from 

multiple vendors can be developed and integrated 

into a single system, supporting the exchange, 

interpretation, and action on data from other 

systems. 

Through implementation and program-level 

 

10 Terms and Definitions, Defense Acquisition University, https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22108.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

33 

adoption of these three tenets, DoD intends to address the issue of single proprietary vendor 

dependency within the acquisition system and improve conditions allowing for full competition. 

4.4 Problem Statement

Over the last decade, the DoD 

has achieved great successes 

from the use of unmanned 

systems for both peacetime and 

wartime operations. These 

successes led to a significant 

increase in the number of 

unmanned systems planned and 

procured, and the future looks to 

see an exponential increase in the 

quantity and diversity of 

unmanned systems applications. 

Traditionally, each unmanned 

system was procured as a 

vertically integrated, vendorproprietary solution, consisting of 

the vehicle system, control station, communications channels, and encryption technologies. 

These single-system variants were typically “closed” systems utilizing proprietary interfaces. 

Development of the entire system was conducted in parallel with close interdependencies 

between components and procured as a whole through the platform prime contractor. As the 

number of new unmanned systems programmed in the Service budgets increased, the magnitude 

of RDT&E requirements for development skyrocketed. In addition to cost, this approach resulted 

in a number of unfavorable acquisition and growth characteristics that impeded progress as 

depicted above. Further, silence about the lack of interoperability and standards failed to foster 

dialog on how to overcome them. Over time, this resulted in an inhibition to innovation; 

increased vulnerability to threats where attacks on common attributes can impact multiple 

systems; increased complexity to systems engineering, development, and test; increased upfront 

costs; increased costs to system upgrades that cannot be made without changes to the 

interoperable dependencies of multiple systems; and budgeting protocols that treat interservice 

and coalition interoperability as fiscal trade-space.

These issues have significantly hampered unmanned systems acquisition activities. However, 

urgent wartime needs dictated that such concerns be relegated to the background, in the interest 

of rapid initial deployment. As the unmanned systems industry matures, however, the acquisition 

process must evolve in parallel. Addressing and enabling interoperability within unmanned 

systems will help accomplish this goal. 

4.5 The Way Ahead

The technical approach to achieve the interoperability vision leverages the tight connection 

between interoperability and OAs, and consists of several elements. Each of the following 

elements is required, and none is sufficient in its own right to implement an OA:
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

34 

• Development of a standard data model and service definitions that support OA concepts. 

• Development of multiple repositories of models, software components, interface 

standards, and infrastructure services that can be used across the Services to extend, 

adapt, and compose unmanned systems and support software component reuse. These 

repositories should encourage the use of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions 

where available, and are not intended to be “single point bottlenecks” as other efforts 

have been in the past. The goal is to provide multiple collection points across the Services 

for best practices, interfaces, and implementations. 

• Collaboration among Government, industry, and academia to extend and manage the 

repositories and to validate components. 

• Migration of current and developing systems to the OA approach. 

To meet current interoperability standards, DoD will rely more heavily on spiral and 

incremental development initiatives ensuring services are compliant with these standards.

4.5.1 Open Architecture (OA)

OA utilizes a common set of interfaces and services; associated data models; robust, standard 

data busses; and methods for sharing information to facilitate 

development. OA involves the use of COTS components with 

published, standard interfaces, where feasible, at all levels of 

system design. This approach avoids proprietary, stove-piped 

solutions that are vendor-specific and enables innovation to be 

better captured and integrated into systems design. The OA 

approach allows for expanded market opportunities, simplified 

testing and integration, and enhanced reusability throughout the 

program life cycle. The Navy’s Cruiser Modernization Program is 

one such effort.

The OA process encourages innovation, allows information 

sharing among competitors, and rewards Government and industry 

for this collaboration. It allows programs to include small 

businesses in systems acquisition activities as a valuable, 

affordable, and innovative source of technologies and capabilities. 

The result is a better product.

DoD unmanned systems consist of a wide range of programs, architectures, and acquisition 

approaches. To create a common framework for development and acquisition, DoD adopted

principles of OA and service-oriented architecture (SOA). While the OA is the contracting, 

architecture, and business process methodology used to develop and acquire systems, a SOA is a 

specific way of designing software, in a standardized architecture, that uses interchangeable and 

interoperable software components called services. When coupled together, the result is a 

business approach to acquiring software developed within a common engineering construct that 

promotes reuse, cost reduction, competition, growth opportunity, expandability, innovation, and 

interoperability among similar systems. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

35 

SOA provides a set of principles or governing concepts that are used during the phases of 

systems development and integration. This type of architecture attempts to package functionality 

as interoperable services within the context of the various business domains that use it. SOAs 

increase functionality by incorporating new services, which are developed separately but 

integrated within the system’s common framework as a new capability. Their interfaces are 

independent of application behavior and business logic, and this independence makes the 

interfaces agile in supporting application changes and enables operations across heterogeneous 

software and hardware environments. 

Programs and efforts to date have strongly tied together unmanned systems capability 

requirements and definitions, along with underlying technology selections. In recognition of the 

rapidly changing technology, unmanned systems architectures would benefit strongly from being 

defined at a platform-independent model (PIM) level, which is devoid of technology 

dependence. 

The PIM level allows for definition of domains, software components, interfaces, interaction 

patterns, and data elements without flattening them to a specific set of computing, 

communications, and middleware technologies. Aside from enabling technology-independent 

design, this approach, as formalized in model-driven engineering principles, fosters 

interoperability.

At a minimum, a common set of interfaces and messaging standards is required for 

interoperability. Without a common semantic understanding of what data represent, there is 

significant opportunity for lack of interoperability, even if messages are correctly parsed and 

interfaces are followed. Therefore, a key final aspect is the recognition that data modeling is a 

separate, core aspect for defining interoperable systems. This aspect includes specifying 

definitions, taxonomies, and other semantic information to ensure there is a common 

understanding about what information a specific data item imparts.

This approach supports the involvement of multiple organizations in the development of one 

or more services, and results in increased innovation, flexibility, and improved performance. 

SOAs, however, constitute only one approach to implementation of OAs. Certain programs may 

not need SOAs. The program manager will determine the correct architecture to implement.

Regardless of whether SOA approach is used, DoD has mandated an OA approach in software 

development. The program manager will be responsible for implementing an environment that 

will support OA in both programmatic and technical areas. 

4.5.2 Service Repositories

DoD recognizes that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution to the challenging problem of 

software and service reuse. However, service repositories fill a growing need within DoD for 

commonality, reuse, and reduced duplication of effort, all of which aid interoperability by 

leveraging common interfaces. Programs will have access to the service repositories for their use 

in planning and implementation. In addition, programs will be encouraged to contribute services 

(within Government Data Rights constraints) to the repositories for future reuse. Where 

programs have requirements that cannot be met by software within the repositories, existing 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

36 

services may be extended to add functionality, and this approach should result in cost savings 

over the creation of brand new capabilities. 

Constructing such repositories requires a commitment to OA, along with the adoption 

of existing and upcoming standards (e.g., SAE JAUS, STANAG 4586, UCS), so that a 

common framework exists with which to develop services. In addition, tools are necessary to 

ease adoption, reduce learning curves, and provide validation and certification capabilities. See 

Figure 8. 

Figure 8. Cross-Domain Service Reuse Through an Enterprise Service Repository. 

OA allows components to be developed once rather than redeveloped for each warfare area 

or mission. OA exploits software reuse and open interfaces to ensure unnecessary costs are not 

incurred in the redevelopment of core software. The OA approach described in this section 

utilizes collaboration among Government, industry, and academia to comply with principles of 

modularity, reusability, interoperability, affordability, and competition to develop reusable 

products. 

Through implementation of the OA approach, DoD will develop and establish a domain 

service portfolio management (DSPM) repository for new acquisition and in-service programs.

This repository will contain program-related software services information including standard 

architectures, design guidelines, service interfaces, and specifications for designing new systems 

or modifying existing systems. Programs will be required to consult with the DSPM repository 

for software reuse, where applicable. As programs design new and unique software and services, 

they are required to populate the DSPM repository with new information and make the service 

available for reuse, within Government Data Rights constraints. 

4.5.3 Collaborating Communities

DoD has long recognized the value in fostering collaboration between Government, industry, 

and academia in open forums to address interoperability and common standards. To that end, a 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

37 

number of integrated product teams, working groups, and other communities have formed, under 

the auspices and support of OUSD(AT&L), to address the interoperability challenge. These 

forums have enabled the Government to engage with industry at all levels, from grassroots to 

executive, and have enabled DoD personnel to aid in the systems and architecture design 

process, rather than simply being customers. These collaborating communities exist within a 

variety of national and international standards bodies, span the domains of unmanned systems 

(i.e., UAS, UGS, UMS), and address key cross-domain areas as well as domain-unique 

capabilities. DoD intends to continue to support this type of collaboration as it fosters the 

development of OAs. Current examples of these communities include the following: 

• The OUSD(AT&L)-chartered UAS Task Force to coordinate critical DoD UAS issues 

and develop a path to enhance operations, enable interdependencies, facilitate 

interoperability, and streamline UAS acquisition. Within the UAS Task Force, the I-IPT 

has been chartered to promote UAS interoperability across the Services. The I-IPT 

establishes a central coordination forum for the Services’ acquisition organizations and 

participating industry partners to share ideas that will allow the Department to build 

interoperability within the deployed UAS infrastructure, individual systems, and 

interfaces with appropriate manned weapons systems and C2 capabilities. 

• Under the guidance of the Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group, the 

Autonomy Systems Community of Interest (CoI) closely examine the DoD’s S&T 

investments in the enabling of autonomous systems. Specifically, this CoI identifies 

potential investments to advance and initiate critical enabling technology developments 

and strategically assesses the challenges, gaps, and opportunities to develop and advance 

autonomous systems. 

• The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is a member of the U.S. Intelligence 

Community and a Department of Defense (DoD) Combat Support Agency. NGA 

provides support to civilian and military leaders and contributes to the state of readiness 

of U.S. military forces by providing geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) imagery, imagery 

intelligence and geospatial data (e.g., mapping, charting and geodesy), and information to 

ensure the knowledge foundation for planning, decision and action. NGA also contributes 

to humanitarian efforts, such as tracking floods and disaster support, and to 

peacekeeping. NGA provides unmanned systems, topographical and terrestrial data, 

geodesy and geophysical data, imagery and precise position and target data for unmanned 

system mission planning and UAS flight operations. GEOINT support includes 

aeronautical and safety of navigation data, vertical obstruction, digital terrain elevation 

data and hydrographic data. 

• NATO’s Joint Capability Group on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (JCGUAV) directs 

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 include STANAG 4586 for UAS message 

formats and data protocols, STANAG 4671 for UAV Airworthiness Standard, and 

STANAG 7085 for the CDL communication system, which has been mandated by OSD 

since 1991. 

• NATO’s Joint Capability Group Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JCGISR) 

provides interoperability between NATO and Coalition ISR systems and includes 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

38 

standards related to imagery formats and interfaces, data storage interfaces, motion 

imagery, electronic intelligence reporting, and imaging systems data links. 

• Current UAS System Interoperability Profiles (USIPs), produced by the I-IPT, define the 

standard interface for payload products and the data link between a control station and air 

vehicle for line of sight (LOS) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) scenarios. Future USIPs 

will address other aspects of interoperability to include data encryption, additional data 

link technologies such as bandwidth efficient common data link (BE-CDL), and 

enhanced capabilities provided by future sensors. 

• The Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (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. Deciding to convert JAUS to an 

international industry standard, the program office approached the Society of 

Automotives Engineers (SAE), a standards development organization (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. The migration to the SAE is complete, and the first 

set of SAE JAUS standards, focusing on the JAUS Service Interface Definition Language 

(JSIDL), core services, mobility services, manipulation services, and environmental 

sensing services, has been balloted and released. 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 

UAS-related SDOs. STANAG 4586 is unmanned aviation’s counterpart to JAUS. 

• 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 UUVs, 

USVs, and UGVs in 2005. Working through SAE AS-4, the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center (NUWC) expanded JAUS to serve the UMS community. It found only 21% 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 UMS in three 

dimensions versus the two dimensions of UGVs, for which JAUS was developed. UUV 

variants of JAUS services are in active development and have been presented to the SAE 

AS-4 committees. 

• Under direction from the OUSD(AT&L),11

 

11 OUSD(AT&L) Acquisition Decision Memorandum, 11 February 2009. 

the UAS Task Force chartered the UAS 

Control Segment (UCS) Working Group, which is tasked to develop and demonstrate a 

common, open, and scalable UAS architecture supporting UAS Groups 2 to 5 (see Fig 1. 

DoD UAS for Groupings). The UCS Working Group comprises Government and 

industry representatives and operates using a technical society model where all 

participants are encouraged to contribute in any area of interest. This effort incorporates 

the best practices of current Army, Air Force, and Navy development efforts to include, 

but not limited to, the following: 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

39 

• Definition of a common functional architecture, interface standards, and business 

rules 

• Use of open-source and Government-owned software as appropriate 

• Competitive acquisition options 

• Refinement of message sets to support all operational requirements of the systems 

previously defined 

In addition to the definition of common capability descriptions, standards, data models, and 

architectures, DoD continues to promote the development of OA tools and to aid system 

acquisition and development in embracing the OA concepts. These efforts extend across the 

technology and unmanned vehicle spectrum, from software development kits, to complete 

architectures, addressing UGVs, UMVs, and UAVs, across all Services. Examples of such tools 

include: 

1. The JAUS Tool Set (JTS) is a tool to help developers build JAUS-compliant software 

components without having to be intimately familiar with the details of JAUS. JTS 

allows an unmanned system designer to focus on behavior rather than messaging, 

protocol, and other considerations by providing a graphical user interface (GUI) service 

editor, validator, internal repository, C++ code generation, and hypertext markup 

language (HTML) document generation.

The Navy and OSD have supported and promoted the use of the JTS and have had 

success incorporating it into development and acquisition efforts. Use of JTS on 

programs accrues benefits to a number of stakeholders in the acquisition chain and 

RDT&E community. 

These benefits include 

enabling a fair basis for 

competition among 

vendors so that true 

capabilities are 

evaluated; reducing 

vendor lock-in on 

unmanned systems; and 

enabling the 

development of a 

service repository for 

JAUS capabilities that 

have been developed 

and are available for 

reuse. JTS reduces the 

threshold for entry into 

developing JAUScompliant systems, opens the market to small businesses, and drives competition and 

innovation focused on core technology. In addition, JTS provides an accepted, common 

validation capability, which is critical to ensure systems maintain compliance with JAUS. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

40 

2. The STANAG 4586 Compliance Toolkit (4586CT) is an integrated set of software tools 

that provides passive, interactive, and automated test capability. Its core function is to 

verify the structure and content of data link interface (DLI) messages against both 

STANAG 4586 and “private” messages as defined to support service-, mission-, or 

platform-specific requirements. This nonintrusive capability is provided either in real

time or during post-run analysis. Additionally, 4586CT can be interoperable with other 

DLI-compatible systems in either manual mode (where an engineer monitors and injects 

DLI messages into the network) or automated mode (in which 4586CT interacts directly 

with other DLI systems according to user-defined scripts and procedures). 

These capabilities enable 4586CT to perform compliance testing at both the message 

level and the higher protocol session levels of unmanned systems relative to the 

STANAG 4586, and other more specific interoperability profiles. Complex DLI message 

dialogs can be monitored and system interaction sequencing verified as 4586CT follows 

user-defined test programs. Because 4586CT can function as a proxy for other unmanned 

system components, it is also used during system development and task-specific 

integration testing to provide insight into unmanned system interaction and performance. 

Multiple instances of 4586CT can also be utilized to perform rapid prototyping of 

interoperation protocols during profile design; as a result, 4586CT can be a useful tool 

during the development of interoperability standards themselves. 

The T&E of interoperability continues to evolve with the growth of unmanned systems. The 

C2 of these systems presents unique test challenges as autonomous functionality expands to 

operating complex equipment over wireless links. The spectrum of test includes assessment of 

standards compliance, electromagnetic frequency testing, sensor standards, payload standards, 

systems interoperability, quantifiable task assessment, performance measurement, metrics 

development, congestion management, and performance baseline measures. The scope of 

operation includes operator, platform, communications grid, C2 teams, ground stations, sensor 

teams, and collaborating systems. While today’s test represents a migration of the test challenge 

represented by proprietary data exchange and data formats towards service-oriented architecture 

exchange, it is also conceivable that the cognitive nature of unmanned systems algorithm 

development may actually accelerate the need for semantic knowledge exchange T&E. 

The rapid acquisition of quickly evolving unmanned systems will require an unmanned 

systems T&E capability that evolves at a pace that exceeds this evolution. The T&E of 

unmanned systems interoperability requires investment in information architectures, 

methodology, test scenario synthesis, model-based T&E, and cross-UAS usage case repositories. 

4.5.4 System Migration

Services working with OUSD(AT&L) are exploring the business case for adopting an OA 

approach for current and in-development systems. While various challenges still remain in the 

adoption of OA, the goal in the next 12 months is to identify migration pathways for all current 

programs of record (see Figure 9). 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

41 

Figure 9. OA Migration Approach. 

Quantifiable progress toward migration has already been achieved. The USAF Advanced 

Cockpit Block 50 (under development by General Atomics) has adopted UCS services and a 

common data bus. The July 2010 Block 50 implementation of takeoff, flight, payload C2, and 

landing utilized UCS-based software in a simulated flight environment demonstrated the 

architecture’s utility. Additionally, Northrop Grumman has now agreed to tie its product lines 

into a common, open product line, with a joint mission-planning-mission-control system

document signed by Northrop Grumman executives for synergy and collaboration between 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) and Global Hawk unmanned systems. Advanced 

Explosive Ordnance Robotic System (AEODRS), utilizing an OA approach for hardware and 

software, is adopting SAE JAUS for messaging and is also developing interoperability profiles to 

ensure common system functionality descriptions, architectures, and data models. AEODRS is 

developing three classes of vehicles (dismounted operations, tactical operations, and 

base/infrastructure operations) with a common architecture and capability modules across the 

FoS. The AEODRS architecture defines the logical, mechanical, and electrical interfaces for 

the FoS. The AEODRS is entering Milestone B, and the development of increment 1 

(dismounted operations) is now starting. 

In addressing interoperability for ground systems, Robotic Systems Joint Project Office 

(RS-JPO) is utilizing SAE JAUS for messaging (with custom extensions as necessary) and

primarily focusing on communications, payloads, power, architecture, and controller. Progress 

has already been made, with a modeling and simulation demonstration and an Input/Output (IO) 

Specification Build V1 planned for 2012. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

42 

4.6 Summary

 We can no longer afford to acquire independent, proprietary unmanned systems that do not 

leverage interoperability. The lines in the battlespace are blurring, and the need to share 

information, sensors, payloads, and platforms is real. The fiscal battlespace is also blurring, and 

vendors must shift strategies to adhere to standards, drive toward OAs, reuse software, and 

develop robust repositories. The goal is to provide more capable unmanned systems to the 

warfighter on time, and interoperability will ultimately play a large role in this effort by enabling 

the composition of novel systems capabilities on a faster timescale. Figure 10 depicts an 

interoperability path for the future as industry and DoD strive to become more efficient. 

Figure 10. Interoperability Roadmap. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

43 

5 AUTONOMY

Dramatic progress in supporting technologies suggests that unprecedented levels of 

autonomy can be introduced into current and future unmanned systems. This advancement could 

presage dramatic changes in military capability and force composition comparable to the 

introduction of “net-centricity.” DoD must understand and prepare to take maximum practical 

advantage of advances in this area.12

5.1 Functional Description

Automatic systems are fully preprogrammed and act repeatedly and independently of 

external influence or control. An automatic system can be described as self-steering or selfregulating and is able to follow an externally given path while compensating for small deviations 

caused by external disturbances. However, the automatic system is not able to define the path 

according to some given goal or to choose the goal dictating its path. 

By contrast, autonomous systems are self-directed toward a goal in that they do not require 

outside control, but rather are governed by laws and strategies that direct their behavior. Initially, 

these control algorithms are created and tested by teams of human operators and software 

developers. However, if machine learning is utilized, autonomous systems can develop modified 

strategies for themselves by which they select their behavior. An autonomous system is selfdirected by choosing the behavior it follows to reach a human-directed goal. Various levels of 

autonomy in any system guide how much and how often humans need to interact or intervene 

with the autonomous system, and these levels will be discussed shortly. In addition, autonomous 

systems may even optimize behavior in a goal-directed manner in unforeseen situations (i.e., in a 

given situation, the autonomous system finds the optimal solution). 

The special feature of an autonomous system is its ability to be goal-directed in unpredictable 

situations. This ability is a significant improvement in capability compared to the capabilities of 

automatic systems. An autonomous system is able to make a decision based on a set of rules 

and/or limitations. It is able to determine what information is important in making a decision. It 

is capable of a higher level of performance compared to the performance of a system operating in 

a predetermined manner.

13

5.2 Today’s State

In 2010, the USAF released the results of a year-long study highlighting the need for 

increased autonomy in modern weapon systems, especially given the rapid introduction of UAS. 

This study, “Technology Horizons,” identified the need for greater system autonomy as the 

“single greatest theme” for future USAF S&T investments. The study cited the potential for 

increased autonomy to improve effectiveness through reduced decision cycle time while also 

enabling manpower efficiencies and cost reductions. 

 

12 USD AT&L Memo to Chairman, Defense Science Board, Subj Terms of Reference, 29 March 2010. 13 NATO Industrial Advisory Group, Study Group 75, Annex C - Autonomous Operations, 2004.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

44 

[The trend] cannot continue indefinitely. There is a place for 

automation here that reduces the manpower requirement, both to operate 

and to process the backend data stream.

– Gen Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff 

Autonomous capabilities have been enabled by advances in computer science (digital and 

analog), artificial intelligence, cognitive and behavioral sciences, machine training and learning, 

and communication technologies. In order to achieve operational acceptance and trust of these 

autonomous capabilities in the highly dynamic unmanned system environment, improvement is 

essential in advanced algorithms that provide robust decision-making capabilities (such as 

machine reasoning and intelligence); automated integration of highly disparate information; and 

the computational construct to handle data sets with imprecision, incompleteness, contradiction, 

and uncertainty. 

In response to CCDR needs, the USAF has aggressively expanded UAS capabilities to a 

target of 65 combat air patrols (CAPs). According to the USAF, 1750 pilots from the Total Force 

(Active, Guard, and Reserve) are required to maintain these CAPs, which operate around the 

clock. This increasing manpower requirement is occurring at a time when constrained budgets 

are limiting growth in Service manpower authorizations. This challenge is not limited to the 

USAF, but is facing all the military Services. Today’s unmanned systems require significant 

human interaction to operate. As these systems continue to demonstrate their military utility, 

exploit greater quantities of intelligence, and are fielded in greater numbers, the demand for 

manpower will continue to grow. The appropriate application of autonomy is a key element in 

reducing this burden. 

5.3 Problem Statement

 The increased manpower to operate unmanned systems is adding stress to the overall 

workload of the armed forces. This stress highlights the need to transition to a more autonomous, 

modern system of warfare. The USAF Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz emphasized the 

need for more automation in the following statement:14 

 

14 Fontaine, Scott, “Schwartz outlines possible future changes,” Air Force Times, 30 August 2010. 

Our Program Managers should be scrutinizing every element of program cost, 

assessing whether each element can be reduced relative to the year before, 

challenging learning curves, dissecting overheads and indirect costs, and targeting 

cost reduction with profit incentive—in short, executing to what the program should 

cost.

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals, Better 

Buying Power, September 2010
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

45 

For unmanned systems to fully realize their potential, they must be able to achieve a highly 

autonomous state of behavior and be able to interact with their surroundings. This advancement 

will require an ability to understand and adapt to their environment, and an ability to collaborate 

with other autonomous systems, along with the development of new verification and validation 

(V&V) techniques to prove the new technology does what it should. Each of these topics is 

discussed in more detail below. Advances in autonomy at the system level must proceed with 

awareness of potential disadvantages and vigilance for unintended consequences, which may 

include diminished command over parts of the forces structure. Every operation includes rules of 

engagement, air tasking order (ATO)/special instructions (SPINS), and options of dynamic 

changes of command direction; and intent must not be traded off. The ability to respond to the 

unexpected cannot be diminished. For example, dealing with volcanic ash in the atmosphere 

cannot be reliably predicted at the beginning of an eruption. The ability to respond and avoid 

affected airspace is an example of a condition that may be difficult for autonomy to address. 

Implementing autonomy can lead to a loss of human attention to vital oversight in matters having 

potentially dangerous or lethal consequences. Caution must be used at the system-of-systems 

level, and constraints applied in some operations in order to allow autonomy in others. Finally, 

surrendering decision trust to a software-based and self-learning design outside the context of 

specific operations is a matter of high rigor, and must be examined in the context of 

organizational-unit and theater CONOPS. 

5.4 Way Ahead

Significant advances have been made in autonomy, but many challenges still exist. For 

relatively static environments and undemanding missions and objectives, rule-based autonomous 

systems can be highly effective. However, most DoD environments and mission tasks dictate 

that unmanned systems operate in complex and uncertain environments as well as possess the 

ability to interact and collaborate with human operators and human teammates. Additionally, 

autonomous systems need the capability to interact and work together with other autonomous 

systems, to adapt to and learn from changes in the environment and missions, and to do so safely 

and reliably. One goal of automation is to leap forward in capabilities using human 

augmentation. Automated assistance of whatever kind does not simply enhance our ability to 

perform the task: it changes the nature of the task itself.15

5.4.1 Transcending to Higher Levels of Autonomy

Autonomy reduces the human workload required to operate systems, enables the 

optimization of the human role in the system, and allows human decision making to focus on 

points where it is most needed. These benefits can further result in manpower efficiencies and 

cost savings as well as greater speed in decision making. Autonomy can also enable operations 

beyond the reach of external control or where such control is extremely limited (such as in caves, 

under water, or in areas with enemy jamming or degraded communications). Advances in 

autonomy will further increase operational capability, manpower efficiencies, and cost savings. 

 

15 Norman, D. A., “How might people interact with agents?” Software Agents, J. M. Bradshaw, Ed. Cambridge, MA: 

The AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 1997, pp. 49–55. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

46 

... the ability to understand and control future costs from a program’s 

inception is critical to achieving affordability requirements.

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition 

Professionals, Better Buying Power, September 2010

While reduced reliance on human operators and analysts is the goal of autonomy, one of the 

major challenges is how to maintain and facilitate interactions with the operator and other human 

agents. An alternative statement of the goal of autonomy is to allow the human operator to “work 

the mission” rather than “work the system.” In other words, autonomy must be developed to 

support natural modes of interaction with the operator. These decision-making systems must be 

cognitively compatible with humans in order to share information states and to allow the 

operator and the autonomous system to interact efficiently and effectively. The level of 

autonomy should dynamically adjust based on workload and the perceived intent of the operator. 

Common terms used for this concept are sliding autonomy or flexible autonomy. The goal is not 

about designing a better interface, but rather about designing the entire autonomous system to 

support the role of the warfighter and ensure trust in the autonomy algorithms and the system 

itself. Table 3 contains the most commonly referenced description of the levels of autonomy that 

takes into account the interaction between human control and the machine motions. 

Table 3. Four Levels of Autonomy 

Level Name Description

1 Human 

Operated

A human operator makes all decisions. The system has no autonomous control of its environment 

although it may have information-only responses to sensed data.

2 Human 

Delegated

The vehicle can perform many functions independently of human control when delegated to do so. This 

level encompasses automatic controls, engine controls, and other low-level automation that must be 

activated or deactivated by human input and must act in mutual exclusion of human operation.

3 Human 

Supervised

The system can perform a wide variety of activities when given top-level permissions or direction by a 

human. Both the human and the system can initiate behaviors based on sensed data, but the system can 

do so only if within the scope of its currently directed tasks.

4 Fully 

Autonomous

The system receives goals from humans and translates them into tasks to be performed without human 

interaction. A human could still enter the loop in an emergency or change the goals, although in practice 

there may be significant time delays before human intervention occurs.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

47 

5.4.2 Ability to Understand and Adapt to the Environment

To operate in complex and uncertain environments, the autonomous system must be able to 

sense and understand the environment. This capability implies that the autonomous system must 

be able to create a model of its surrounding world by conducting multisensor data fusion (MDF) 

and converting these data into meaningful information that supports a variety of decision-making 

processes. The perception system must be able to perceive and infer the state of the environment 

from limited information and be able to assess the intent of other agents in the environment. This 

understanding is needed to provide future autonomous systems with the flexibility and 

adaptability for planning and executing missions in a complex, dynamic world. 

Although such capabilities are not currently available, recent advancements in computational 

intelligence (especially neuro-fuzzy systems), neuroscience, and cognition science may lead to 

the implementation of some of the most critical functionalities of heterogeneous, sensor netbased MDF systems. The following developments will help advance these types of processing 

capabilities: 

1. Reconfigurability of sensor weighting: When a heterogeneous sensor net is used for an 

MDF system, each sensor has a different weight for different applications. As an 

example, regardless of whether a dissimilar MDF methodology is used to identify an 

object, an image sensor has much higher weight than radar. On the other hand, when an 

MDF methodology is used to measure a distance from the sensor to an object, a 

rangefinder or radar has a much higher weight than an image sensor. 

2. Adaptability of malfunctioning sensors and/or misleading data: Even if an MDF 

methodology is used to identify an object, an image sensor cannot perform if it is faced to 

the sun. Data from the image sensors will either be saturated or need to be calibrated.

Additionally, the image sensor data needs to be continuous calibrated if the weather is 

cloudy and changing because the measured data will be different based on shadows and 

shading. Therefore, the environment of a heterogeneous sensor net is a key parameter to 

be considered for design and implementation of an MDF system. 

The single greatest theme to emerge from “Technology Horizons” is the need, 

opportunity, and potential to dramatically advance technologies that can allow the Air 

Force to gain the capability increases, manpower efficiencies, and cost reductions available 

through far greater use of autonomous systems in essentially all aspects of Air Force 

operations. Increased use of autonomy — not only in the number of systems and processes 

to which autonomous control and reasoning can be applied but especially in the degree of 

autonomy that is reflected in these — can provide the Air Force with potentially enormous 

increases in its capabilities, and if implemented correctly can do so in ways that enable 

manpower efficiencies and cost reductions. 

– USAF Report on Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology 

During 2010-2030, 15 May 2010
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

48 

3. Intelligent and adaptive heterogeneous data association: Heterogeneous, sensor netbased MDF systems must process different data simultaneously, such as one-dimensional 

radar signals, two-dimensional imaging sensor data, etc. As the combination of 

heterogeneous sensors change, the data combination is changed. Therefore, adaptive data 

association must be performed before conducting MDF and data input to the decisionmaking module. 

4. Scalability and resource optimization of self-reconfigurable fusion clusters: The 

limiting factor of an MDF system is the scalability of self-reconfiguring the fusion cluster 

to adapt to a changing battlefield and/or the malfunction of one or more sensors. As the 

number of sensors used for a sensor net increases, the combinatorial number of 

reconfigurations exponentially increases. To manage such complexity, the MDF system

will require a highly intelligent, fully autonomous, and extremely versatile reconfigurable 

algorithm, including sensor resource management and optimization. Great progress has 

been made in sensor management algorithms and cross-cued sensor systems, but true 

optimization is an elusive goal that is currently unavailable. Such capability can be 

obtained only from intelligent computing technology, which is currently in its infancy. 

While robustness in adaptability to environmental change is necessary, the future need is to

be able to adapt and learn from the operational environment because every possible contingency 

cannot be programmed a priori. This adaptation must happen fast enough to provide benefits 

within the adversary’s decision loop, and the autonomy should be constructed so that these 

lessons can be shared with other autonomous systems that have not yet encountered that 

situation. Yet even in a hostile, dynamic, unstructured, and uncertain environment, this learning 

must not adversely affect safety, reliability, or the ability to collaborate with the operator or other 

autonomous systems. The flexibility required of autonomous systems in dynamic, unstructured 

environments complicates the predictability needed for U.S. commanders to “trust” the 

autonomy. 

“Trust” will be established through robust operational T&E along with safeties and 

safeguards to ensure appropriate behavior. Complex autonomous systems must be subject to 

rigorous “red team” analysis in order to evaluate the full range of behaviors that might emerge in 

environments that simulate real-world conditions. Safeties and safeguards are also required to 

mitigate the consequences of failures. Because artificial systems lack the human ability to step 

outside a problem and independently reevaluate a novel situation based on commander’s intent, 

algorithms that are extremely proficient at finding optimal solutions for specific problems may 

fail, and fail badly, when faced with situations other than the ones for which they were 

programmed. Robust safeties and control measures will be required for commanders to trust that 

autonomous systems will not behave in a manner other than what is intended on the battlefield. 

5.4.3 Enabling Greater Autonomy in TPED Processes

In addition to C2 processes, traditional TPED processes offer huge opportunities for reducing 

the degree of human involvement. Near-term developments could introduce a greater degree of 

automation, ultimately evolving to more autonomous systems. Current TPED processes are 

manpower intensive. In today’s combat environment, most full-motion video (FMV) and still 

imagery is monitored and used in real time, but then stored without being fully analyzed to 

exploit all information about the enemy. This challenge is not unique to the unmanned 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

49 

environment, but it has been exacerbated by the large numbers of ISR-capable, long-endurance 

unmanned systems being fielded. These systems are collecting great quantities of information 

and overwhelming current TPED processes. Near-term steps might include implementation of 

change detection and automatic target recognition software to enable automated cueing that 

identifies and calls attention to potential threats. Applications of face recognition software could 

enable high-fidelity FMV to identify individuals of interest. Increased automation in 

communications intelligence sensors has the potential to identify key words and even specific 

voices to rapidly alert operators to targets of interest. Ultimately, automated cross-cueing of 

different sensor types in a networked environment could enable greater autonomy in tasking 

systems and their sensors to identify and track threats more rapidly. 

Increased processing power and information storage capacities also have the potential to 

change how unmanned systems operate. For example, many current UAS transmit ISR data that 

is processed and exploited in ground stations. If more processing and exploitation processes can 

be accomplished onboard a UAS (like the automatic target recognition or communications 

intelligence examples discussed above), the system can disseminate actionable intelligence for 

immediate use and reduce bandwidth requirements. FMV ISR, for example, uses roughly an 

order of magnitude more bandwidth than the C2 data for a UA. By accomplishing more of the 

TPED process onboard the unmanned system, the link bandwidth can then be focused on 

transmitting only what’s needed, and the overall bandwidth requirements can be reduced. 

5.4.4 Ability to Collaborate with Other Autonomous Systems

In addition to understanding the 

environment, unmanned systems must also 

possess the ability to collaborate through 

the sharing of information and 

deconfliction of tasking. Collaborative 

autonomy is an extension of autonomy that 

enables a team of unmanned systems to 

coordinate their activities to achieve 

common goals without human oversight. 

This trend in autonomy will continue to 

reduce the human role in the system.

Autonomously coordinated unmanned 

systems may be capable of faster, more synchronized fire and maneuver than would be possible 

with remotely controlled assets. This trend will lead to a shift toward strategic decision making 

for a team of vehicles and away from direct control of any single vehicle. 

Today an analyst sits there and stares at Death TV for hours on end trying to 

find the single target or see something move or see something do something that 

makes it a valid target. It is just a waste of manpower. It is inefficient! 

– Gen James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during 

remarks to the U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation on 4 Nov 2010
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

50 

The ability to collaborate is one of the keys to reducing force structure requirements. The 

collaborative autonomy that is developed must be scalable to both larger numbers of 

heterogeneous systems as well as increased mission and environment complexity. Collaborative 

autonomy must be able to adapt to the air, ground, and maritime traffic environment and to 

changes in team members, operators, and the operational environment. 

5.4.5 Development of New Approaches to Verification and Validation (V&V) 

To ensure the safety and reliability of autonomous systems and to fully realize the benefits of 

these systems, new approaches to V&V are required. V&V is the process of checking that a 

product, service, or system meets specifications and that it fulfills its intended purpose. These 

components are critical in a quality management system such as ISO 9000. Today’s V&V 

processes will be severely stressed due to the growth in the amount and complexity of software 

to be evaluated. They utilize existing industry standards for software certification that are in 

place for manned systems (e.g., DO-178B). Without new V&V processes, such as the use of trust 

audit trails for autonomy, the result will be either extreme cost growth or limitations on fielded 

capabilities.

Efforts leading to advancements in computational intelligence as well as the appropriate 

V&V processes are essential. Enhanced V&V technologies would provide both near-term cost 

reduction and enhanced capabilities for current autonomous systems and would enable otherwise 

cost-prohibitive capabilities in the future. New autonomous system test and analysis capabilities 

are also required to assess intelligent single-vehicle and group behaviors. These technological 

enhancements and policy actions would lead to more effective development, testing, and 

operations of current and future autonomous systems. 

5.4.6 Policy Guidelines to Ensure Safe Operation

Additional measures, beyond V&V, will be required to ensure safe operation of autonomous 

systems. No V&V process can guarantee 100% error-free operation of complex systems. As 

software complexity increases, predicting the precise behavior of autonomous systems in realworld environments will be increasingly difficult. Policy guidelines are necessary in order to 

ensure that if failures or malfunctions occur, or if an unmanned system encounters an 

unanticipated situation, the system continues to operate appropriately. 

Policy guidelines will especially be necessary for autonomous systems that involve the 

application of force. Current armed, unmanned systems deploy lethal force only in a fully 

human-operated context (level 1) for engagement decisions. For these systems, the decisions 

both to employ force and to choose which specific target to engage are made by a human. The 

United States does operate defensive systems for manned ships and installations that have 

human-supervised autonomous modes (level 3), and has operated these systems for decades. For 

the foreseeable future, decisions over the use of force and the choice of which individual targets 

to engage with lethal force will be retained under human control in unmanned systems. 

5.5 Summary

Technological advances in autonomy are critical as the need to field greater numbers of 

unmanned systems stresses the limited number of available operators. Challenges in the area of 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

51 

autonomy address not only functionality, but also transparency to the operator, safety, and 

reliability. Figure 11 provides a vision into the future of the autonomy advances that are required 

to maintain an affordable force structure and confidently operate unmanned systems in an 

increasingly complex environment. Initially, autonomy will improve the safe operations of 

unmanned systems within the increasingly complex environment of military operations as well 

as reduce operator workload associated with mundane and noncritical processes. Ultimately, 

autonomy will increase warfighter effectiveness by enhancing unmanned systems capabilities 

and expanding their capacity to effect results in the battlespace. 

Figure 11. Autonomy Roadmap. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

52 

6 AIRSPACE INTEGRATION (AI)

6.1 Functional Description

Over the past several years, UAS have become a transformational force multiplier for DoD. 

The numbers and roles of UAS have expanded dramatically to meet mission demands, and 

operational commanders have come to rely upon robust and persistent ISR support from

unmanned platforms executing their core missions against hostile forces. DoD UAS require 

routine NAS access in order to execute operational, training, and support missions and to support 

broader military and civil demands. UA will not achieve their full potential military utility to do 

what manned aircraft do unless they can go where manned aircraft go with the same freedom of 

navigation, responsiveness, and flexibility. Military aviation is a major contributor to the virtue 

of maneuver for our forces in warfare. 

While the force structure continues to grow, the ability to integrate UAS into the NAS has 

not kept pace. Current access for UAS is greatly limited primarily due to FAA regulatory 

compliance issues that govern UAS operations in the NAS. DoD UAS operations conducted 

outside of restricted, warning, and prohibited areas are authorized only under a (temporary) COA 

from the FAA. Similar issues need to be resolved for access to international and foreign national 

airspace.

The DoD UAS Airspace Integration Plan, March, 2011 provides a more comprehensive 

discussion on the topic of AI. In this plan, DoD provides an incremental approach strategy to 

provide DoD UAS access to a given operations profile that leads to a full dynamic operations 

solution. This methodology recognizes that DoD requires access to differing classes and types of 

airspace as soon as possible and that routine dynamic operations will likely take several years to 

implement. Figure 12 depicts the six access profiles. 

Figure 12. Operational View. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

53 

6.1.1 Vision

DoD’s vision is to ensure UAS have 

routine access to the appropriate airspace 

required to meet mission needs. For military 

operations, UAS will operate with manned 

aircraft using CONOPS that make manned 

or unmanned aircraft distinctions 

transparent to air traffic services (ATS) 

authorities and airspace regulators. Having 

robust UAS AI capabilities for all classes of U.S. airspace is fundamental to flexible worldwide 

UAS deployment. 

6.1.2 Precepts

The 2010 DoD Airspace Integration Plan

outlines DoD’s approach, which is summarized 

by four overarching precepts (see right). The 

U.S. military will use its vast experience to 

develop the safest, most capable UAS fleet 

possible. We will strive for maximum 

compliance with existing regulatory guidance 

and inform regulatory processes when changes 

are needed. DoD will fully leverage statutory authorities to design, test, and ultimately certify its 

UAS in compliance with applicable standards, regulations, and orders. The regulatory and policy 

changes may be broad in scope to affect multiple Military Departments and Combatant 

Commands (CCDRs); therefore, UAS AI activities should make every effort to be coordinated 

prior to engaging with FAA or other external agencies. 

6.2 Today’s State

In order for any military aircraft — manned or unmanned — to fly routinely in domestic and 

international airspace, three foundational requirements must be met. These three requirements

are essential and form the foundation for UAS AI. Title 10 of the United States Code (USC) is

the legal underpinning for the roles, missions, and organization of DoD and provides authority 

for the military departments to organize, train, and equip U.S. forces to fulfill the core duties for 

national defense. Consistent with this statutory authority and longstanding practice and

reinforced by interagency agreements, DoD is responsible for establishing airworthiness and 

... it is vital for the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation 

Administration to collaborate closely to achieve progress in gaining access for 

unmanned aerial systems to the National Airspace System to support military 

requirements. 

– 110th Congress, NDAA for FY09, Sect 1039
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

54 

pilot training/qualification requirements for the military and 

ensuring rigorous military standards are satisfied.16

6.2.1 Airworthiness 

 The third 

and most complex requirement, regulatory compliance, 

encompasses both internal military department regulations and 

external FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) flight regulations. 

 Airworthiness is a basic requirement for any aircraft system, manned or unmanned, to enter 

the NAS. The primary guidance for DoD airworthiness certification is found in 

MIL-HDBK-516B, Airworthiness Certification Criteria. This document defines airworthiness as 

“the ability of an aircraft system/vehicle to safely attain, 

sustain and terminate flight in accordance with an 

approved usage and limitation.”17 Airworthiness 

certification ensures that DoD aircraft systems are 

designed, manufactured, and maintained to enable safe 

flight. Certification criteria, standards, and methods of 

compliance establish a minimum set of design and 

performance requirements for safely flying a given 

category and class of aircraft. The DoD is expanding 

current military airworthiness guidance to include criteria 

that address those component and system attributes that are unique to UA. UAS-unique standards 

derived from NATO STANAGs (e.g., 467118

6.2.2 Pilot/Operator Qualification 

, 4705, and 4703) will be reviewed and 

incorporated as appropriate. 

The DoD determines where and how it will operate its 

aircraft, and each Military Department creates the qualification 

training programs necessary to safely accomplish the missions of 

that aircraft or weapon system. The standards to train and qualify 

pilots/operators of UAS will remain under the authority of the 

Military Departments and appropriate CCDRs. UAS 

pilot/operator training requires a different skill set from the set 

needed for flying manned aircraft due to differences such as the 

means of takeoff, cruising, and landing by visual remote, aided visual, or fully autonomous 

methods. Therefore, the Military Departments and CCDRs must apply the minimum training 

standards outlined in CJCSI 3255.01 to their respective training programs to ensure the requisite 

knowledge, skills, and abilities are addressed appropriately. 

 

16 Title 10 provisions relating to service authority to organize, train, and equip include 10 U.S.C. Sec. 8062 (Air 

Force), 10 U.S.C. Sec. 3062 (Army), 10 U.S.C. Sec. 5062 (Navy), and 10 U.S.C. Sec. 5063 (Marine Corps). 

Multiple service instructions address airworthiness standards, e.g., Air Force Instruction 62-601, dated 11 June

2010. 17 MIL-HDBK-516B with change 1, Airworthiness Certification Criteria, 29 February 2008. 18 NATO STANAG 4671, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Air Worthiness Requirements (USAR).
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

55 

6.2.3 Regulatory Compliance 

The Military Departments have a robust process for establishing manned aircraft flight 

standards and procedures. However, the current ambiguity and lack of definition in national and 

international regulatory guidelines and standards for UAS make it difficult to know, with 

consistency or certainty, whether UAS can comply. In fact, some current UAS may already be 

operating at appropriate levels of safety; however, until the necessary UAS-specific standards, 

regulations, and agreed-upon compliance methodologies are defined, establishing regulatory 

compliance for more routine operations is difficult. In the meantime, UAS operations within the 

NAS are treated as exceptions through the COA process. 

While many requirements can be met through the use of existing manned aircraft, many 

missions are more efficiently and safely accomplished by using unmanned platforms. 

Technology advancements may be able to help resolve regulatory compliance issues for UA

(particularly Title 14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 91.113 containing the 

see and avoid provision); however, the level and complexity of technology required to resolve 

today’s regulatory compliance issues will negatively affect system affordability. 

6.3 Problem Statement

The number of UAS in the DoD inventory is growing rapidly. The increase in numbers, as 

well as the expanding roles of UAS, has created a strong demand for access to national and 

international airspace and has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for military 

operations. 

6.4 Way Ahead

6.4.1 Methodology 

DoD’s UAS NAS access methodology includes the array of UAS platform capabilities, 

required airspace, technology improvement, and implementation activities/products required to 

attain routine operations within the NAS. This methodology uses an incremental approach to 

provide DoD UAS access to a given operations profile that leads to a full dynamic operations 

solution (see Figure 13). This methodology recognizes that DoD requires access to differing

classes and types of airspace as soon as possible and that routine dynamic operations will likely 

take several years to implement. 

The profiles, as outlined in an operational view (Figure 12) and DoD’s AI Plan, may be used 

individually to access specific local airspace or integrated together to satisfy additional airspace 

requirements. Visual LOS operations establish a means to conduct UAS operations in Visual 

Flight Rules conditions. The terminal area profile is intended to facilitate UAS operations in a 

confined volume of airspace, such as Class D airspace or near restricted airspace. UAS operating 

areas, such as special use airspace (e.g., restricted area, or military operations area (MOA)), can 

be accessed either by flying through a lateral corridor (through Class E) or by vertically 

ascending to Class A airspace and flying across. While operating areas are limited to restricted or 

warning areas, MOAs are desirable because they offer a wide variety of airspace spanning 43 

states to provide a robust, nationwide UAS training capability without the creation of new 

airspace. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

56 

Figure 13. Incremental Approach to Regulatory Compliance. 

Plans and programs to enable UAS operations within a profile will be evaluated for joint 

applicability and NAS access utility. For example, because most of the required near-term 

airspace for DoD UAS will be in Class D, E, and G, DoD intends to focus much of its near-term 

resources on addressing this major need. 

6.4.2 Policy

Policy agreements can maintain the safety of the NAS while also allowing certain 

requirements to be fulfilled. In 2007, DoD and FAA signed a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MoA) allowing limited UAS operations for small UAS below 1200 ft above ground level 

(AGL) and UAS within DoD-controlled, non-joint-use Class D airspace. The 2007 MoA will be 

updated periodically, as needed, to allow DoD to incrementally increase access to the NAS. For 

example, the small UAS special federal aviation regulation is expected to be complete in 2013, 

but DoD can immediately leverage this work by seeking to incorporate many of the 

recommendations into an updated DoD-FAA MoA. 

Capability Visual Line of Sight Terminal Area Capability

• Combat readiness

• Tactical surveillance & 

reconnaissance

• Disaster relief-DSCA

• Pilot/Operator qualification 

proficiency

• Development & test

• Take-off / landing proficiency

• Orbit proficiency

• Local security (e.g. event & 

emergency)

• Development & test

• Maintenance & checkout

• Transit to training airspace

• Convoy & roadway security

• Border patrol

• Deployment

• Development & test

• Ferry (e.g. contractor to test 

facility)

Lateral Transit Operating Areas

• Orbit proficiency

• IFR Qualification & proficiency

• Combat readiness

• Local security (e.g. event & 

emergency)

• Development & test

• Maintenance & checkout

• Transit to Class A 

controlled airspace

• IFR Qualification & 

proficiency

• Orbit operations

• Development & test

• Ferry

Vertical Transit Dynamic

• All operational missions

• All training missions

• All support missions

DSCA = defense support of civil authorities; 

IFR = instrument flight rules

Mid-Term

Far-Term

Near-Term
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

57 

The Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA) serves as the DoD liaison with the FAA on 

federal air traffic control and airspace management. The board provides policy and planning 

guidance to ensure the Military Departments have sufficient airspace to fulfill requirements. 

With support from OSD and the Military Departments, the board is working with FAA to update 

the 2007 MoA. 

Where broader issues involve other agencies, the DoD 

participates in the UAS Executive Committee (ExCom). The 

ExCom acts as a focal point for senior leaders from FAA, DoD, 

DHS, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

to meet periodically to resolve any policy and procedural disputes 

and to identify solutions to the integration of UAS into the NAS. 

The ExCom has established a working group to address COA issues, 

published a plan to Congress in October 2010, and continues to 

address specific issues such as collecting and sharing UAS safety 

data.

6.4.3 Technology 

Current UAS are built to different specifications for different purposes; therefore, showing 

individually that each system is safe for flight in the NAS can be complicated, time consuming, 

and costly. Routine access cannot happen until DoD and FAA agree to an acceptable level of 

safety for UAS, and the appropriate standards are developed to meet that threshold. With 

developed standards, UA will be operationally treated as manned systems, and such treatment 

will improve interoperability with other systems, cost savings, and development transparency. 

Until those necessary UAS-specific standards are established, 

requirements will be dependent on the individual system and 

intended flight environment (access profiles). Each system’s 

mission requirements will drive the selection of sense and avoid 

(SAA) solutions and process for implementation. Ground-based 

sense and avoid (GBSAA) can provide an initial means to maintain 

aircraft separation requirements for multiple profiles, while 

improvements to sensor and automation technology will continue 

to improve an airborne SAA (ABSAA) solution. 

GBSAA efforts are focused on developing methods to provide 

aircraft separation within a prescribed volume of airspace using a 

ground-based system that includes sensors, displays, 

communications, and software. GBSAA solutions will incrementally relieve restrictions on 

existing COAs and facilitate UAS training and operations in the NAS. This effort is establishing 

requirements, gathering data, performing modeling and simulation, testing and verifying 

collected data, and obtaining airworthiness approvals, as appropriate. GBSAA can particularly 

benefit smaller UAS where other SAA solutions are cost prohibitive. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

58 

ABSAA efforts are focused on developing onboard capability to 

perform both self-separation and collision avoidance that ensure an 

appropriate level of safety. Current programs have phased validation 

schedules for due regard, en-route/Class A, and divert/ Class E/G 

operations as technology innovation and integration allow. GBSAA 

and ABSAA may be applied as a single or combined solution to some 

access profiles to maximize safety and/or reduce operational costs. 

6.4.4 CONOPS Development

The DoD is developing an AI CONOPS to provide a framework for common UAS practices, 

procedures, and flight standards in NAS and international airspace. It is intended to standardize 

UAS access methodologies and procedures, implement appropriate methods for compliance with 

see-and-avoid requirements, and inform development of an UAS AI Initial Capabilities 

Document (ICD). It will establish a standard suite of lost-link, lost-communications, and lostSAA procedures for DoD UAS in all phases of flight. These procedures will help define methods 

for notification and the appropriate action to either regain link or recover/divert the UA. The 

CONOPS also provides the operational and procedural construct to employ the access profiles at 

bases across the United States and to inform the process of basing UAS in locations outside the 

continental United States (OCONUS). 

6.4.5 Requirements Development

The CONOPS, along with the Military Departments’ individual location airspace 

requirements, will feed development of an UAS AI ICD. The UAS AI ICD is intended to 

identify the financial requirements for UAS integration into the NAS across the United States

and OCONUS. As the initial SAA technologies mature through development and validation, they 

can be applied to the appropriate profiles and documented in the UAS AI ICD. This effort will 

allow the Military Departments to accurately estimate the costs to operate UAS at any given 

individual location as needed. 

6.4.6 Timing of Activities

The DoD is focusing on near-term, mid-term, and far-term activities. This timing allows for 

immediate improvements in NAS access, while working toward viable long-term solutions.

... limited access to airspace is having a negative impact on the unmanned 

aviation community and many regions of the U.S. that are ready to support UAS 

industry growth.... over the next 15 years more than 23,000 UAS jobs could be 

created in the U.S. as the result of UAS integration into the NAS. 

– Aerospace Industries Association. (2010). Total Employment: Annual Calendar 

Years 1990-2009. Available at AIA website: http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/stat12.pdf
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

59 

• Near-term activities address small UAS, DoD-controlled airspace, and operations under 

COAs. Priority is given to initiatives that reduce COA requirements and streamline the 

FAA approval process. DoD believes significant near-term improvement in UAS NAS 

access is achievable through COA, policy, and procedural initiatives. 

• Mid-term activities address local airfield and transit operations. Where policy and 

procedures fall short of achieving the long-term objective of routine access, a significant 

investment in standards and technology development is necessary. Priority is given to 

developing validated AI requirements and associated standards and to establishing an 

SAA capability that will provide NAS access through special rules and policy, new 

procedures, and use of ground-based sensor technology. 

• Far-term activities address most UAS missions in any operating location and airspace to 

include FAA’s Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen). The end state is 

routine NAS access comparable to manned aircraft for all DoD UAS. 

6.5 Summary

DoD UAS have become a critical component of military operations. Many DoD UAS now 

require rapidly expanded access to the NAS and international civil airspace to support 

operations, training, testing, and broader governmental functions. 

In order for military aircraft to fly routinely in domestic and international airspace, the 

aircraft must be certified as airworthy, operated by a qualified pilot/operator in the appropriate 

class(es) of airspace, and comply with applicable regulatory guidance. DoD exercises sole 

certification authority for its aircraft and pilots/operators, consistent with authority provided in 

Title 10 of the US Code. 

DoD’s UAS NAS access methodology uses an incremental approach to provide DoD UAS 

critical access to a given operations profile prior to implementing a full dynamic operations 

solution. DoD’s immediate focus is gaining near-term mission-critical access while 

simultaneously working toward far-term routine NAS access. DoD’s efforts will have positive 

affordability effects by championing utilization of UAS within the NAS. This progress will be 

accomplished through policy and procedural changes as well as technology and standards 

development and is thoroughly outlined in the AI Plan. The end state is routine NAS access 

comparable to manned aircraft for all DoD UAS operational, training, and support missions. 

Figure 14. UAS NAS Roadmap. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

60 

7 COMMUNICATIONS 

7.1 Functional Description

DoD unmanned systems need a process for operational control and mission data distribution, 

especially for nonautonomous systems. For some ground and maritime systems, these types of 

exchanges of information can use a cable for the transmission path, but for highly mobile 

unmanned operations, the exchange is more likely to use signals sent across the electromagnetic 

spectrum (EMS) or by other means (e.g., acoustical or optical). The EMS is highly regulated at 

the national19 and international20

DoD’s desire is to operate unmanned systems in theater or within the United States and its 

possessions so that communication constraints do not adversely affect successful mission 

execution. Specifically, DoD must significantly improve communication transmission 

efficiencies; attain better bandwidth efficiencies; increase transmitter and receiver efficiencies; 

and acquire communications systems that are of less size and weight, require less power, and 

provide more efficient cooling to operate. 

levels. While numerous over-the-air communication systems 

have been designed, built, and fielded and have performed reasonably well, others have been 

fielded in a noncompliant status and have not met difficult operational constraints. 

The operational employment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems requires access to a range of 

SATCOM capabilities. Planning and budgeting for UAS operations must take into account 

realistic assessments of projected SATCOM bandwidth (both military and commercial) in a 

range of operational scenarios. Investments in UAS systems must be matched with appropriate 

investments in the military and commercial SATCOM capabilities that are required to support 

UAS operations. 

7.2 Today’s State

The state of unmanned systems communication systems differs greatly among the air, 

ground, and maritime environments. In supporting operations in OIF, Operation New Dawn

(OND), and OEF there has been a large number of new sensors and communication systems 

installed on various fielded unmanned systems. These have significantly increased the amount 

of data that has been collected, and that is desired to be sent to local and remote warfighters. To 

 

19 For the U.S. Government, see the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s Manual of 

Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. Washington, DC, January 2008 edition, 

September 2009 revision (incorporated by reference under 47 CFR 300.1).

20 International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Radio Regulations, Geneva, Switzerland. 2007 Edition.

“Ongoing operations in Southwest Asia continue to drive the voracious 

demand for pilots, support personnel and bandwidth above all” 

– Col. J.R. Gear, USAF, speaking at recent C4ISR Journal Conference in 

Washington.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

61 

get the needed data to the remote warfighters, the DoD pays significant funds to several 

commercial large data transmission companies. Many current unmanned systems have 

experienced the impact of frequency congestion, interference from systems operating in adjacent 

frequency bands, and the physical limits associated with the spectrum that has been made 

available. 

The following paragraphs describe the current communication environments by domain. 

7.2.1 Unmanned Ground Systems (UGS)

Until recently, most unmanned systems utilized several radios: one for data, one for video, 

and sometimes one for voice. Because of congestion, frequency competition, and regulatory 

challenges in several theaters, many of these communication systems were redesigned to operate 

at higher frequencies. However, use of these higher frequencies reduced the operational 

effectiveness in dense foliage and urban areas. 

7.2.2 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Small, hand-carried and/or hand-launched systems (e.g., the Raven) utilize LOS 

communications, while large aircraft (e.g., the Predator, Reaper, Gray Eagle, and Global Hawk) 

utilize both LOS and BLOS communications, the latter generally using satellite communications. 

Initial small UAS (< 20 lbs) communication systems utilize industry analog designs, but 

most now utilize the Army-developed digital data link (DDL) system.21 The DDL design 

incorporates aspects of a software-defined radio with the ability to “field-select”22 the frequency 

band in which to operate, the channel frequency within that band, the bandwidth of each channel, 

and the radiated power level.23

7.2.3 Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMS)

Larger UAS operating LOS incorporate the common data link 

(CDL) that has been mandated for use in ISR platforms.

There are unique challenges related to UMS: dealing with the air water interface, 

transmission loss communicating underwater, and negotiating the dynamics of the sea surface. 

Intermittent communications are the norm in maritime systems and multispectral capabilities are 

utilized to meet communications requirements. Primary tradeoffs to be considered when 

evaluating a mode of communication for a USV or UUV that supports dynamic tasking, 

querying, and data dissemination include data rate, processing capability, range, detectability, 

and negotiating the maritime environment. These are of particular concern for the ISR and the 

 

21 Developed by the Army’s Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center. An alternative DDL for 

small UAS is also being developed that could use a version of CDL. NATO has developed STANAG 4660, 

Interoperable Command and Control Data Link for Unmanned Systems (IC2DL), which is based on the DDL. 22 This selection process is not by software but by switches. Moving to software control is being considered during a 

future upgrade of the DDL.

23 The USAF Cryptographic Modernization Program Office and the Army developed a prototype encryptor for this 

DDL.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

62 

ASW missions when communication is desired without exposing either the sender or receiver to 

possible hostile interception.24

7.3 Problem Statement

 

 There are alarming red flags early in this Roadmap’s time horizon regarding the amount of 

data that future UMS sensors will be collecting. How to best deal with that amount of data and 

distributing the needed information within that data to the right warfighters at the right time will 

be a major challenge. Left unchecked, sending all that data to local or remote sites will tax 

current technology and available funding (e.g., COMSAT links). The DoD needs 

communication technologies and tactics, techniques, and procedures that overcome these 

limitations and that are agile, robust, redundant, efficient, and affordable. Those needed 

technologies are discussed throughout Section 7.4 Way Ahead

In addition to achieving these technology advances

. However, improved 

communication transmission technologies alone cannot achieve the necessary capacity. The 

DoD must pursue a fundamental shift to a future state where we pre-process the collected data, 

rapidly pass only critical data on to the warfighters, and then store for later retrieval the 

remaining data that may be needed. 

25

In particular, tomorrow’s UMS will need to utilize technical strategies which can more 

efficiently deal with extremely large data sets. In managing this data, better data compression, 

encryption and processing algorithms need to be employed in preprocessing, transmission and 

data fusion. These strategies also need to mandate efficient use of the spectrum, reduce 

frequency use overhead, allow for data security and ensure improved clarity of the available 

frequency spectrum. To support DoD’s goals, communication systems need to support multiple 

frequency bands, limited bandwidth, variable modulation schemes, error correction, data 

encryption, and compression. All this support, of course, needs to be done so that no 

electromagnetic interference (EMI)

, their application in UMS needs to meld 

with overall DoD wireless network communication concepts, meet national objectives for 

unmanned systems, and properly address regulatory policies and their limitations. All this needs 

to be done early in the requirements development process so those advances can be incorporated 

within future UMS. 

26

There are numerous challenges to meeting this goal. First, operating a higher density of 

unmanned systems within relatively small areas creates increased local data rate demands.

Second, size, weight, power and cooling (SWaP-C) are limiting factors on many platforms, for 

both onboard systems and ground/surface control systems. Third, the fidelity of the 

communication links must be ensured. Fourth, latency associated with digital systems must be 

reduced, especially for takeoff and landing of large UAS. These challenges will be exacerbated 

is caused within those systems or within other nearby 

spectrum-dependent systems (SDS). 

 

24 U.S. Navy Undersea Dominance Roadmap. 25 These advances need to include government ownership of critical data and intellectual property to ensure the best 

return on our research investment.

26 The development of the resulting on-board and ground stations needs to address EMI hardening and the units 

tested per MILSTD-464A and MILSTD-461F.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

63 

by an expected decrease in available spectrum available due to an increase in the civil27 uses of 

spectrum, an objective within the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) National 

Broadband Plan28and directed by the White House29

Spectrum testing in unmanned systems today involves communications across a global 

environment with various levels of spectrum management. The communication challenges 

require investment in multiple technologies for leveraging communications across the radio 

frequencies and ultimately the optical spectrum. The impediments to unmanned systems 

communications are largely restricted to better use of the spectrum through investment in 

technologies that expand communication efficiencies. The problem today is largely a physics 

problem, which increases in complexity exponentially as one considers the air, ground, and 

maritime domain challenges. The testing of cognitive algorithms that can opportunistically 

leverage communications facilitating advanced mission oversight or multisystem collaboration 

remains in its infancy. 

.The challenges in attaining this goal include 

developing, procuring, testing, and fielding communication systems that can operate with greater 

effectiveness, efficiency, and flexibility even in congested and adversarial environments. 

7.4 Way Ahead

Current DoD policies and guidance stress the need for new systems30 to have a balance 

among improved interoperability; increased agility31; greater adaptability; improved spectral 

efficiency; compliance with U.S. national, host nation, and international spectrum policies32

Figure 11. 

Autonomy Roadmap.

; and 

lower production costs. The ability to update and reconfigure parts of a communication system 

by software changes (e.g., software-defined radios) has been available for several years. In 

addition, these systems should conform to a standards-based architecture (e.g., service-orientated 

architecture) that supports multiple networks to enable rapid and transparent configuration 

changes without removing the radios from operation. Such multiple-input, multiple-output 

(MIMO), multicarrier, and multiwaveform capabilities, along with the software control of these 

functions, are needed within future subsystem developments. Ultimately, it is desired that these 

reconfiguration changes be done “automatically” so the systems adapt dynamically (

) in response to sensed changes in the operational environment33

The need to support operations in which there are intermittent wireless propagation links has 

become common place. This support has resulted in increased use of advanced error control 

coding, MIMO configurations, various path diversity techniques, integrated networking, and data 

diversity — all to provide improved end-to-end quality of service. Future effectiveness of 

unmanned communication systems is contingent on continued advancements in antennas, 

(> 2020). 

 

27 Both in CONUS and OCONUS. 28 FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Washington, DC, 2010.

29 Presidential Memorandum “Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution.” June 28, 2010, 30 This goal includes systems used in networking, communications, electronic warfare, navigation, intelligence, and 

sensors.

31 This goal would include assured and secure communications. 32 See DOD Instruction (DODI) 4650.01, Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, Washington, DC, 

9 January 2009, and DODI 4630.8, Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology 

(IT) and National Security Systems (NSS).

33 Also see Section 5 of this Roadmap.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

64 

transmit/receive systems, underwater communications, spectrum considerations, signal

processing, network systems, and optical communications. A description of those advancements 

is given in the following subsections. 

7.4.1 Antennas

Communication with highly mobile systems requires high-gain, rugged, and lower cost 

multidirectional antennas. The larger UAS systems may also use highly focused beams to 

achieve connectivity with more distant systems.34

Future antenna systems need to be able to send and receive signals over a broad range of 

frequencies. Phased arrays are a viable approach. For SWaP-C and low-profile considerations, 

phased array antennas need to be conformal (e.g., using metamaterial) that will be molded within 

the vehicle surfaces. The utilization of common apertures has called for the development of new 

interference mitigation methodologies that minimize co-site interference effects and improve the 

potential for achieving simultaneous transmit and receive operations within adjacent frequency 

bands. 

 Developments in phased array antennas and 

“smart” antennas (to include combining signals from multiple antennas) could offer an 

alternative to traditional dish antennas; however, they require tradeoffs among SWaP-C. DoD 

and industry will need to continue developing such techniques as multifocused and super-cooled 

antenna systems. The multi-focused systems would permit multiple users to receive information 

and not rely on point-to-point systems and subsequent relaying of data via other communication 

systems to local users.

7.4.2 Transmitter/Receiver Systems

Current transmitter solid-state power amplifiers (SSPAs) are typically made with gallium 

arsenide (GaAs) substrate. Gallium nitride (GaN) SSPAs, currently in development, provide 

significant advantages over GaAs SSPAs. They offer more than double the efficiency of GaAs 

amplifiers; they increase the amplifier operational bandwidth; and GaN SSPAs may provide for a 

wider range of frequency of operation. The high transmit efficiency of GaN systems will also 

reduce the cooling requirements. In order to achieve some of these benefits, the amplifier designs 

are being enhanced with adaptive operating point control that adjusts to the instantaneous power 

being demanded from the amplifier. This enhancement significantly reduces the average prime 

power required by the amplifier by allowing it to effectively turn itself off when not in use, yet 

adjusting to maintain proper conditions to ensure minimal distortion at higher instantaneous 

powers. The GaN technologies are currently available for selected frequency bands and will soon 

 

34 Global positioning system (GPS) has been used to aid in this connectivity.

... Reinvigorate the industry’s independent research and development and 

protect the defense industrial base. 

–Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals, Better 

Buying Power, September 2010
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

65 

be available for fielding (2014). The amplifiers may also utilize signal-processing-based signal 

predistortion techniques to compensate for the basic nonlinearity of the amplifier’s transfer 

characteristics. 

Instantaneous bandwidth performance and analog-to-digital converter sampling speeds have 

continued to improve year after year.35 In addition, improvements in integrated chip fabrication 

methods have allowed for significant miniaturization and reductions in part counts and for 

various transmit/receive and antenna functions and components to be integrated on a single chip 

(2013). Fiber optics has been used to speed up the data and signal transfers from and to the 

antenna and the signal processing hardware (2012).36 Microminiature mechanical device 

developments should provide smaller size, more flexibility, and greater performance in receiver 

designs37

7.4.3 Underwater Communications 

 (2015). Future developments are expected to provide improvements in reliability and 

fabrication yields, reduced thermal characteristics, reduced integration complexity, and lower 

production costs. 

Ocean dynamics challenge underwater 

and surface communications and are unique 

to UUVs and USVs. These systems gain 

efficiency and effectiveness with real-time, 

two-way communications that do not 

undermine mission accomplishment. The 

Navy’s Undersea Dominance Roadmap

(under development) will identify current 

and future architectures to link UUVs, 

distributed netted systems, and tactical 

platforms. Future developments described 

in that roadmap will leverage existing 

technologies and potential new capabilities 

that will come through the Office of Naval 

Research S&T research and development 

efforts. 

7.4.4 Spectrum Considerations

U.S. military operations are now occurring in many parts of the world where adequate 

spectrum is not available. There is a significant increase in the numbers of SDS being deployed 

by the United States, our partners, and our coalition forces to address current and expected future 

 

35 Lundberg, Kent H., High-Speed Analog-to-Digital Converter Survey, MIT Press, 2002. 36 See the DARPA Optical RF Communications Adjunct and the Office of Naval Research’s Enabling Capability 

programs. This application is more for ground-based systems than for airborne systems. This use also significantly 

minimizes the signal loss and allows more advantageous placement of selected components.

37 C. T.-C. Nguyen, “Microelectromechanical devices for wireless communications (invited),” Proceedings, 1998 

IEEE International Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Workshop, Heidelberg, Germany, Jan. 25-29, 1998, pp. 1-7.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

66 

mission areas. In addition, these SDS collect more information, and missions often require 

greater bandwidths to send their information directly to warfighters. This latter consideration has 

been seen within OEF missions where new ISR UAS have included wide area surveillance 

sensors; alternative spectrum bands have been identified38 to help address the wider bandwidths 

needed by those systems. Also, mission areas are becoming more spectrally “noisy” because of 

increasingly cluttered and hostile spectrum environments. As such, a continual demand for 

improved spectrum efficiency and effectiveness is being placed on all DoD SDS.39 All 

unmanned systems must complete during their development process a spectrum supportability 

and risk assessment in accordance with DODI 4650.01 to identify and mitigate regulatory, 

technical, and operational spectrum supportability. Because national and international spectrum 

rules and policies can rapidly change,40

The use of LOS datalinks also supports missions where there is a denial of or impaired 

service to SATCOM systems. Under such conditions, the demand for LOS spectrum will be 

extended to support the need for improved spectrum use efficiency and effectiveness. 

 developers should maintain a close liaison with 

appropriate DoD spectrum offices before finalizing communication system designs. 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Next Generation (XG) 

project and its follow-on Wireless Network after Next (WNaN) program demonstrated the 

feasibility of dynamic spectrum access (DSA). DSA offers the ability to change frequency band 

use based on other adjacent SDS actual use and nonuse of certain bands. The Joint Tactical 

Radio System (JTRS) program is investigating the feasibility of integrating DSA technologies 

into its system. The U.S. Army is also considering having WNaN become part of an Army 

program of record. However, a recent USAF Scientific Advisory Board study said that DSA is 

far from being proven technology. Developmental challenges include susceptibility to 

countermeasures, costs of integrating with existing systems, developing standards (including 

regulatory aspects), and co-site interference (2015). 

Alternative technology advances should aid in the spectral efficiency challenge to include 

internal and external EMI mitigation advances such as coherent signal cancellation, space-time 

adaptive processing, polarization diversity, and adaptive digital beam forming. 

 

38 OASD NII memo dated March 22, 2011 Subject: Department of Defense (DoD) Common Data Link (CDL) 

Usage in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Theater

39 All new and modified SDS programs now need to conduct a spectrum supportability and risk assessment prior to 

Milestone B (source: DODI 4650.01). 

40 Relatively near-term spectrum usage changes could come from the ITU and its 2011 Worldwide 

Radiocommunication Conference (WRC); UAS spectrum use is a conference agenda item. Changes in frequency 

band usage for UAS may also come from the FAA and the ICAO as part of the UAS operations in the NAS airspace 

and in other nation-states’ airspace.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

67 

7.4.5 Communications and Signal Processing

7.4.5.1 RF Waveforms

All ISR systems are to use the CDL waveform specification41 whenever possible.42 A miniCDL system43 is finishing development to allow CDL usage within smaller platforms than were 

possible in the past. Candidate future CDL waveform developments include adding a “dial-arate” capability for transmission speeds (with multiple bits-per-hertz and operating within the 

gigabit-per-second range) and a more efficient forward error correction (FEC) coding (both 

2014). Also, several UAS program offices are pursuing such performance advances as more 

efficient CDL waveforms, operation in additional frequency bands, expanded communications 

security,44 low probability of intercept (LPI) or low probability of detection (LPD), improved 

anti-jam, and greater link throughput. Corresponding improvements in surface and ground 

stations that receive the CDL signals have also been or are being made. There have also been 

significant efforts to improve commonality of these systems through the UAS Task Force and its 

I-IPT.

45

Future CDL improvements will include, as feasible, the incorporation of advancements being 

offered by DARPA, industry, and academia. Four of the most appropriate DARPA programs that 

are being closely followed are the DARPA 

Interference Multiple Access and Disruption 

Tolerant Networking programs.

 

7.4.5.2 Preprocessing

Considering the anticipated large amounts 

of data projected to be collected by unmanned 

systems in an environment of limited 

bandwidth capability, one challenge is 

determining how much of that data needs to be 

sent back in near real time to a ground station. 

There is ongoing interest in addressing how 

best to select portions of images and to track 

those portions over time and send back “just” 

those selected images in near real time. These 

selection activities are currently being 

developed within classified TPED programs. 

As these activities progress, they should be 

applied in preprocessing efforts onboard 

 

41 These developments follow DODI 4630.09, DoD Wireless Communications Waveform Development and 

Management. The currently approved version is Standard CDL (STD-CDL) Rev H. 42 The main reason for nonuse would be SWaP-C issues. 43 This effort mostly focused on SWaP-C issues. 44 Two cryptographic solutions (one classified and one unclassified) are used currently. 45 See Section 4 of this Roadmap.

Future DoD R&D Efforts

Increased video bit depth

Quality, spatial, and temporal scalability of video

Increased number of color components

New delivery paradigms (e.g., region of interest, tiling, 

client/server)

Error concealment and robustness to transmission errors 

Reliability of a compressed stream within noisy or highloss communications environments 

Improved compression efficiency
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

68 

In addition to performance enhancements, compression techniques have tremendous 

potential to reduce bandwidth requirements and thereby reduce operating costs. 

unmanned systems. Improved preprocessing must be accompanied by sensor and processor 

miniaturization to reduce SWaP-C so as to maintain the persistent nature of UMS. 

7.4.5.3 Compression

Compression techniques have tremendous potential to reduce bandwidth requirements, 

resulting in lower operating costs and increased operational flexibility. For example, FMV, 

synthetic aperture radar (SAR), inverted SAR (ISAR), and multispectral images can generate 

high bandwidth requirements (> 360 Mbit/s data rates). When compressed, the datalink 

bandwidth requirement could be in the range of only 1 to 30 Mbit/s.46 Current compression 

techniques are described in the motion imagery systems matrix (MISM).

47 This matrix defines a 

recommended practice for the simple identification of broad categories of motion imagery 

systems. The intent of the MISM is to give user communities an easy-to-use, common shorthand 

reference language to describe the fundamental technical capabilities of DoD/Intelligence 

Community (IC)/National System for Geospatial Intelligence (NSG) motion imagery systems.

The video quality needed for unmanned systems would nominally be MISM levels 4M/4H and 

3M/3H. Currently the H.264 standard, which is firmly engrained in the commercial market,

48

offers twice the performance as Motion Picture Experts Group-2 standard (MPEG-2), and 

advanced encoding options will give even greater improvements49 (albeit with potentially 

increased encoder latency).50

Beyond technical compression of all the collected data, there are logical advances that could 

reduce the amount of information that needs to be sent. This would include incorporation of 

logical bases for “just” replacing old information about a target’s position with a more recent 

update, but not resending the unchanging background around the target. 

The goal of the United Nations’ ITU is for the H.265 standard to 

provide a chosen quality level at half the bit rate of H.264 (2018). For unmanned applications, 

future research and development should be undertaken by DoD and industry within areas 

depicted in the graphic on the right. 

 

46 Operational needs should determine the data rate that should be sent. Commanders in the field should be 

encouraged to require the lowest possible resolution and other parameters that meet their needs.

47 See Motion Imagery Standards Profile (MISP) Recommended Practice 9720d, MISM, Standard Definition Motion 

Imagery.

48 It is widely used within Blu-ray and digital video disk (DVD) systems.

49 Over the past several decades, each generation of standardized video compression has provided a halving of the 

required bit rate for a given quality level relative to the prior generation. 50 The latency introduced by some compression schemes can be so great that data links using such compressions 

cannot be utilized during such critical times as takeoffs, landings, and weapon launches.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

69 

7.4.5.4 Encryption

Unmanned systems incorporation of data encryption includes National Security Agency 

(NSA) Type 1 (for protection of classified and unclassified information) or Federal Information 

Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 140-2 certified solutions (for sensitive but unclassified 

information).51 Several encryption solutions exist (e.g., Type 1 systems) for protection of 

unmanned systems communications (see DODI 4660). Numerous other policies and initiatives 

are under development within the NSA to significantly streamline the certification processes and 

reduce costs.52 Future encryption solutions (2015) will inherently contain Suite B (public) 

encryption algorithms53 to allow for secure classified information sharing with coalition and 

friendly forces. Additionally, an increasing number of encryption solutions will be based on such 

concepts as open standards for remote management; dynamic group keying (to support machineto-machine information exchanges), common radio and system agnostic cryptographic interfaces 

(e.g., improving cryptographic component reuse and portability); software-based solutions for 

protection of classified data;

54

7.4.5.5 Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) Systems

 multifunctional single-chip data-in-transit and data-at-rest 

encryption; and single-chip all-encapsulated encryption modules (e.g., encrypt/decrypt/random 

key generation/key management). 

MIMO is a proven technology and is currently being used in commercial fourth generation 

(4G) wireless systems which have standards calling for a minimum of 100 Mbps for train and car 

speeds and 1 Gbps for stationary and walking speed. 55

With further improvements in E-discovery, interface design, and adaptive protocols, selfforming and self-healing mesh networks may enable unmanned systems to operate in multiplatform, multi-sensor type networks. 

 MIMO combines information theory, 

FEC coding, signal processing, propagation theory, and consequently the mathematics behind

MIMO and space-time coding is complicated. MIMO would utilize multiple paths (although not 

necessarily independent) with lower data rates on each path; apply space-time coding and 

capacity optimization to achieve a total high data rate mission; apply power saving to jammer 

margin; and evaluate performance in benign and stressed conditions. 

7.4.5.6 Protected Communications

 In general, unmanned systems have been predominantly operated in benign environments. 

However, efforts are addressing improvements that are required to enable such systems to have 

assured and secure communications when operating in contested environments. These efforts 

leverage LPI, LPD, and Anti Jamming (AJ) activities that are underway in other communication 

systems developments. When moving UMS operations into contentious environments, a 

 

51 Source: Memorandum from NII, Subject: Cryptographic Methods for Protection of Unmanned Aircraft (UAS) 

Wireless Communications, 6 August 2003. 52 Management Directive 17, (U) Requirements for the Pilot Implementation to Develop Information Assurance 

Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) Secret and Below (SAB) Products and Commercial Solutions for Classified. 53 CNSSP 15, dated March 2010. 54 Ongoing efforts by NSA/I851. 55 The conditions in UAS applications are much different than those for commercial cell phones. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

70 

classified System Threat Assessment Report needs to be developed such that the appropriate LPI, 

LPD and AJ techniques are selected for incorporation into the system’s design. LPD generally 

seeks to hide specific mission activities and involves techniques such as low power, spread 

spectrum, pulsed transmissions and/or directional antennas. Certain aspects of DSA could also 

benefit LPD. A key technique for LPI is the use of bit cover sequences within waveforms. AJ 

techniques include incorporating randomization at the protocol level and frequency hopping. 

Some aspects of DSA software implementation could offer some AJ protection. 

7.4.6 Network Systems

Networking of multiple unmanned systems may be necessary to better ensure connectivity of 

the systems in non-LOS, urban, hostile, and/or noisy EMS environments to relay or transfer the 

collected information. One such concept under development is within the DARPA’s LANdroids 

program,56

7.4.7 Optical Communications

 which calls for the deployment of small, inexpensive, smart robotic radio network 

relay nodes that can leverage their mobility to coordinate and move autonomously. It seeks to 

demonstrate the capabilities of self-configuration, self-optimization, self-healing, tethering, and 

power management. Another concept would be the application of service-orientated architecture 

approaches to future network configurations. 

The application of lasers in unmanned systems communications could provide increased 

target detection capabilities, improved anti-jam performance, and decreased EMI within the 

communication subsystem. Optical communication systems are hampered by atmospheric 

absorption challenges, yet they offer far greater bandwidth (measured in gigabits-per-second) 

capabilities. LOS optical links have been successfully demonstrated at link ranges in excess of 

50 km. Applications could apply to fixed locations and in air-to-air and ship-to-ship scenarios. 

Theoretical estimates indicate that air-to-ground links are feasible at rates up to 100 Mbit/s for 

link slant ranges up to 100 km, depending upon atmospheric conditions. Due to the extreme 

narrow beamwidth of such systems, maintaining pointing accuracy to and from a moving 

unmanned system will be a major challenge (> 2020). 

7.5 Future Trends 

Based on the force multiplier that unmanned systems have provided to our combat troops, it 

is expected that there will be a continued and increasing demand for supported capabilities 

communication systems. Those demands will include such capabilities as a single operator 

conducting more real-time analysis of multiple situations, while the unmanned system performs 

many of its assigned functions autonomously. Future communications equipment will need to be 

simple plug-and-play payloads that are easily, quickly, and cost-effectively modified, updated, 

and/or upgraded. 

 

56 Source: http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/ld/ld.asp.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

71 

7.6 Summary

 There is tremendous worldwide competition for a finite amount of bandwidth. Concurrently, 

there is an increased demand for our unmanned systems to provide greater resolution, more 

persistent coverage, and continuous information flow. Technology supporting physical and 

software advances, and a fundamental shift in how we process and move vast quantities of data

must be used to help overcome these conflicting requirements. Figure 15 provides a glimpse into 

the future capability and technologies we can expect throughout the course of this Roadmap. 

Figure 15. Communications Roadmap. 

Future communications equipment will need to be simple plug-and-play 

payloads that are easily, quickly, and cost-effectively modified, updated, and/or 

upgraded. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

72 

8 TRAINING

8.1 Functional Description

Training is a critical link in delivering warfighter capability. DoD can acquire and deliver the 

most technologically advanced piece of machinery, but if the operators, maintainers, and support 

personnel are not properly trained, there is no warfighting capability. The criticality of this fact is 

emphasized by the requirement for acquisition program managers to “work with the training 

community to develop options for individual, collective, and joint training” as part of the 

acquisition process.57

Training is a learning process that involves the acquisition of knowledge, sharpening of 

skills, concepts and rules, or changing of attitudes and behaviors to enhance performance. Once 

initial training is complete, proficiency is maintained through continuation and Joint training. 

Unmanned systems present a unique training challenge due to the following factors: 

• Availability of training areas/NAS integration.

• Frequency spectrum management.

• The rapid proliferation of numbers and types of unmanned systems in response to 

wartime demand. 

• Differing organizational perspectives on vehicle operator qualifications, sensor operator 

qualifications, and support personnel requirements across the growing number of systems 

in all classes of UAS, UGS, and UMS. 

• The reality that most USAF day-to-day continuation training is accomplished under intheater combat conditions due to the high demand for UAS assets in real-world 

contingencies. This trend provides limited opportunity for the USAF to integrate its 

unmanned systems in pre-deployment training as the Army and USMC routinely do. 

• Lack of operator interoperability and universal design standards for unmanned systems 

control stations. 

• Lack of formalized joint tactics across the Services.

8.2 Today’s State

As unmanned systems have matured and acquisition programs of record have emerged in all 

Services, a concerted effort has been made to ensure, wherever practical and possible, that the 

Services share logistics costs and burdens to include training and training systems. To date, many 

success stories can serve as a template for moving toward the vision of maximum joint training 

standard(s) for unmanned systems: 

• USMC and Army personnel operate a joint Shadow UAS qualification course at the 

Army’s training facility in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. While the Navy does not operate 

 

57 DoD Instruction 5000.02 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, December 8, 2008, p.61. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

73 

Provide soldiers and leaders the ability to excel in a challenging and increasingly 

complex future operating environment by developing tools and technologies that enable 

more efficient and effective training through live, virtual, constructive and mixed venues. 

Future training must enable the future force to impart more skills, faster, at lower cost 

and with greater retention than currently achievable. Soldiers and units must be able to be 

trained using non-traditional home station training techniques and technology and train 

prior to employment. Future training must enhance and account for individual 

proficiencies and learning rates (i.e. outcome based training). Future training and leader 

development must be completely adaptable and scalable to cover the full spectrum of 

operational challenges facing the Soldier.

– Capability Gap/Deficiencies, Robotic Systems Joint Project Office Unmanned Ground 

Systems Roadmap, July 2009 

Shadows, Navy operators and maintainers were asked to help bridge a high-priority 

capabilities gap. This task was accomplished with no change in training hardware and 

software, simulation, or practical hands-on training. Navy personnel successfully 

deployed the Shadow system.

• The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations signed a MoA to 

better utilize joint efficiencies in the Air Force Global Hawk and the Navy BAMS UAS 

programs. The goals of the working group are transparency between systems and a 

common work environment for both USAF and Navy operators. 

• Army and Navy/USMC personnel share Raven B training and equipment, including 

maintenance requirements and GCSs.

• The JUAS COE58 developed joint CONOPS, training qualification standards, and 

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for UAS. 

Despite these success stories, given the DoD mandate to maximize training procedures and 

standardization for unmanned systems, the current state of unmanned systems training is still 

very much a work in progress. 

The need for a comprehensive UAS training strategy was highlighted in UAS training 

workshops held in July and November 2009, hosted by the Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Directorate for Training Readiness and Strategy 

(ODASD(R)TR&S). The workshops were attended by all four Services, CCDRs, OSD, and 

Joint organizations involved with UAS issues. Additionally, a recent Government 

Accountability Office report recognized the lack of UAS training planning and called for the 

development of a DOD results-oriented strategy to resolve challenges that affect the ability to 

train personnel for UAS operations.59

 

58 JCOE is being disbanded June 2011 and its tasks are being transferred to the Joint Staff and UAS Task Force.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

74 

8.3 Problem Statement

As forces drawdown in theater and redeploy, the Services will require comprehensive 

continuation and Joint-forces training in the peacetime environment at beddown and selected 

Joint-training locations. Failure to prepare for this eventuality will result in a loss of combat 

gained experience. 

8.4 Way Ahead

The ODASD(R)TRS is leading efforts to develop a comprehensive DoD UAS training 

strategy. The strategy will leverage the skills and expertise of each organization and build on 

foundational efforts already completed or underway within the Services. The study will 

investigate and assess the adequacy of existing and forecast joint, Service, and CCDR UAS plans 

and programs that identify and describe qualification, continuation, and joint training 

requirements and CONOPS. The strategy will identify and describe individual, unit, and large 

force training requirements of all groups of UAS. The result will be a UAS Training Roadmap 

that guides UAS training shortfall and mitigation analyses, provides UAS training 

recommendations, and proposes investment considerations for the UAS community. The UAS 

Training Roadmap will serve as a companion piece to this Unmanned Systems Roadmap to 

provide a total look at efforts related to delivering UAS capabilities to the warfighter.

Intuitively, some issues that will need to be addressed in the future include: 

Policy: As attention shifts more towards day-to-day continuation training and UAS are 

further integrated into the NAS, unforeseen disconnects in the ability to train will need to be 

addressed in policy. 

Education: UAS need to be habitually integrated into the kill chain in training scenarios. 

Commanders must be educated on the use of UAS as combat resources, and learn how to train 

with these relatively new assets. Tactical, Operational, and Strategic level UAS and ISR 

doctrine should be included in appropriate professional military education courses of instruction. 

Issues involving operator currency, flight minimums, and continuation training requirements 

must be learned and opportunities to train must be must be emphasized during home station 

training, combined exercises, and Joint Combined Training Center rotations. 

Training Automation and Simulation: Rapidly expanding weapons systems capability 

requires associated expansion in training simulation. This expansion will need improved 

simulation fidelity and integration with live platforms for both effective/efficient use of 

resources. This will require improvements in training environments and classroom courseware. 

Basing and Acquisition: As training requirements are defined, existing capabilities at 

proposed basing locations must be assessed against that which must be acquired to provide 

effective training. 

 

59 GAO-10-331, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: Comprehensive Planning and a Results-Oriented Training

Strategy Are Needed to Support Growing Inventories, March 2010.
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

75 

Figure 16. Training Timeline is notional. A DoD UAS Training Strategy is currently in 

development that will add specificity once developed.

... UAS operators advised that the use of simulation is critical to their preparation 

for combat. UAS simulation is so accurate and realistic that, specifically for the 

Shadow UAS, it is hard to tell the difference between the simulator and actual flight.

– SFC Brian Miller, UAS Standardization NCO, Directorate of Evaluation and 

Standards, USAACE, Fort Rucker

The majority of flight training is simulation.

– SSG Brian Morton, 15W UAS Instructor/Standardization NCO, UAS Training 

Battalion, Fort Huachuca
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

76 

9 PROPULSION AND POWER

9.1 Functional Description

The dramatic increase in the development and deployment of unmanned systems across the 

entire spectrum of air, ground, and maritime mission requirements has led to a concurrent 

increase in the demand for efficient, powerful, often portable, and logistically supportable 

solutions for unmanned system propulsion and power plant requirements. 

For the purpose of this section, propulsion and power consist of the prime power to provide 

thrust and electrical power conversion, management, and distribution necessary for the operation 

of the electrically driven subsystems required to perform an unmanned vehicle’s mission. 

9.2 Today’s State

A wide array of propulsion systems is used in unmanned systems, including combustion 

engines powered by heavy fuel or gasoline, jet engines, electric systems, fuel cells, solar power, 

and hybrid power systems. These propulsion systems can be divided into three groups according 

to vehicle size and mission: turbine engines, internal combustion, and electrical. The thresholds 

are not simple or clean cut, but are highly dependent on mission goals. Some of the parameters 

taken into consideration to determine the optimum propulsion system include size, weight, 

airflow, range, efficiency, and speed. Similarly, numerous power systems are in use, including 

batteries, engine-driven generators, solar power and hybrid systems. 

The T&E of propulsion and power is critical as we consider a world of declining energy 

reserves and the strategic initiatives in alternative energy being made by the DoD. 

9.3 Problem Statement

Endurance is perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of unmanned systems. While power 

and propulsion systems are much improved over comparable manned systems, the search 

continues for even more efficient systems to provide greater endurance, speed and range such as 

the X-51A Scram Jet shown in Figure 17 preparing for first flight. 

Figure 17. X-51A Scram Jet. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

77 

A primary long-term goal in aircraft propulsion is to reduce system specific fuel 

consumption by more than 30 percent over (current) gas turbine engines.... Technical

challenges being pursued include efficiency, high-overall-pressure-ratio compression 

systems; variable-cycle engine technologies; advanced high-temperature materials and 

more effective turbine blade cooling; and techniques to more efficiently recuperate energy 

while satisfying thermal and power requirements.

– The National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related 

Infrastructure 

9.4 Way Ahead

9.4.1 Propulsion

These challenges are currently being addressed for UAS applications under the highly 

efficient embedded turbine engine (HEETE) and efficient small-scale propulsion (ESSP) 

products, which are part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) 

Program. 

HEETE will demonstrate engine technologies that enable fuel-efficient, subsonic propulsion 

that supports future extreme endurance and range requirements with embedded engines 

incorporating complex inlets and exhausts. Covering the thrust class of 20,000 to 35,000 lbs, 

HEETE has two challenges: packing a high-bypass engine internally and delivering large 

amounts of electrical power regardless of throttle or flight condition. The HEETE design 

provides very small, high-powered cores to enable high bypass within the diameter constraints of 

an internally packaged engine. The propulsive efficiency is provided by highly efficient fans 

designed with the distortion tolerance needed to run behind complex inlets. The HEETE cores 

run at impressive pressure ratios, greater than 2.3 times the current state-of-the-art, and such 

ratios enable high tolerance of auxiliary power at high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) 

altitudes. See Figure 18 HEETE cutaway view. 

Figure 18. Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine (HEETE). 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

78 

ESSP will cover a full spectrum of technologies for propulsion systems for vehicles ranging 

from 100 to 2500 lbs. These products promise game-changing system capabilities. The S&T 

challenge to meet the ESSP goals is the simultaneous combination of high power density with 

high efficiency (low specific fuel consumption) in a design space not typically addressed by 

either gas turbine or piston engine systems (see Figure 19. Efficient Small-Scale Propulsion 

(ESSP).).

Figure 19. Efficient Small-Scale Propulsion (ESSP). 

ESSP will conduct various demonstrations leading to reduced specific fuel consumption 

(SFC), increased power density, and a heavy fuel consumption capability. These demonstrations 

include a ducted fan, a nutating engine, a heavy fuel engine conversion, and a recuperator. ESSP 

is also designing and rig-testing high pressure ratio compressors and high temperature capable 

turbine concepts aimed at long-term capability. 

The ducted fan is the most complex of the near-term demonstrations. The two main 

technologies to be demonstrated are the high-bypass geared ducted fan and the variable turbine 

nozzle. The test demonstrates the capability to run the high-bypass ducted fan with airflow from 

two different distributed core gas generators for maximum power during takeoff and 

maneuvering and then turning off one core gas generator, as a variable cycle feature, at cruise to 

cut the fuel consumption (conventional high-bypass turbofans would have to pull back the power 

setting to attain cruise condition, and this method would decrease engine speed, reduce the 

pressure ratio, and decrease component efficiencies resulting in increased SFC). The remaining 

core gas generator used to drive the ducted fan at cruise condition continues to operate at its 

design point for best cycle SFC. The variable turbine nozzle matches the airflow changes to 

maintain efficient turbine performance and drive the ducted fan. 

The nutating disk engine leverages small business innovation research (SBIR) contracts for 

both the 4-inch and 8-inch disk engines. Both engines utilize the OSD SBIR-derived advanced 

microcomponents to enable engine performance potential. The major technical challenges are the 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

79 

development of micro-fuel injectors and radial engine seals and the understanding of the 

thermodynamics process. Both sizes of disk engine have undergone initial testing and show a 

significant increase in power density, to 1.38. The nutating disk is scalable to multiple UAV 

platforms by scaling the disk size.

The heavy fuel conversion engine, i.e., the Rotax used in the Predator, runs on aviation 

gasoline (AvGas, 100 octane). The Rotax concept demonstration is aimed at running the engine 

initially with lower octane fuels and ultimately with JP-8 heavy fuel. Engine testing has been 

completed successfully with 70 octane fuel. Although octane level is not specified for JP-8 fuel, 

fuel analysis to date has shown variations between a 20 to 50 octane level. Testing is on-going to 

demonstrate the operation of the Rotax engine on JP-8 fuel with targeted completion by the end 

of 2010. In parallel, there are SBIR efforts working to convert the Shadow UEL AR-741 engine 

to JP-8 fuel. Conversion efforts are aimed at maintaining engine performance levels while 

operating with JP-8 fuel. 

The WTS126 turbo generator, developed by Williams International to drive the General 

Motors electric car, has a highly efficient recuperator, but is too heavy and large for installation 

into a flight vehicle. VAATE II studies indicated that a less efficient recuperator appeared to be 

the best balance among performance, size, and weight for a flight vehicle application. The 

WTS126 is an alternative heavy fuel propulsion system candidate for the Shadow. Testing and 

evaluation of the baseline WTS126 and the version with the less efficient flight weight 

recuperator are both underway. 

For smaller platform applications, fuel cells offer an attractive alternative for internal

combustion engines as field power generators, ground vehicle and aircraft auxiliary power units

(APUs), and primary power units for small UAS. Fuel cells are devices that electrochemically 

combine fuel and air to produce high-quality electrical power. Because these systems do not 

generate power via combustion processes, they offer significantly lower SFC rates relative to 

advanced heavy fuel engines or diesel power generators (see Figure 20). 

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems represent a compelling power system option due to 

their high efficiencies, fuel flexibility, and low audible signature. Compared to other fuel cell 

approaches, the thermal environment and conductivity mechanism in SOFCs allow for a 

considerable improvement in fuel tolerance and provide a path forward for electrochemical 

logistic fuel operation. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

80 

Figure 20. Fuel Cell Efficiency. 

9.4.2 Power

Power sources are critical enablers for all of the desired unmanned systems capabilities.

Improved power sources will have to be compact, lightweight, and reliable; provide enough 

power for the desired mission; and satisfy a full range of environmental and safety requirements.

Design of power sources must be optimized for specific platforms and use profiles. Depending 

on the platform and mission requirements, applicable technologies may include energy 

harvesting (e.g., photovoltaic), electrical energy storage devices, fuel cells, and generators. It 

may be attractive to hybridize two or more of these technologies depending on the expected use 

profile. To implement these hybrid systems, the development of the proper control schemes must 

also be conducted. Recently, there has been a lot of effort invested to improve the power density 

of power generation systems with very good progress, but work is still needed to improve other 

power systems critical metrics. Some of these needed metrics and improvements are life, 

reliability, efficiency, optimized performance over varying engine speed, wide temperature 

range, production variability, control strategy, and parameters that capture the fact that 

unmanned subsystems typically do not have the redundancy of manned systems. Early scrutiny 

of the vehicle design will lead to improved power management. Form factor, materials, 

autonomy in sensor usage and route planning, and consideration of the undersea physical 

environment will minimize the energy demands and give back energy to extend the endurance or 

meet other mission goals.

Advances in mission equipment are providing much greater capabilities, but at a cost of 

greater demand for electric power, which results in greater power extraction from the engine.

Power-sharing architectures allow for tailoring the source of power generation to minimize the 

cost in fuel burn. For example, if low-pressure (LP) power extraction is more economical than 

high-pressure (HP) power extraction, then the SSPCs can be turned on to power the bus that was 

previously powered by the HP-driven generator. Engine power extraction technologies related to 

power sharing between the HP spool and LP spool promise to provide significant benefit to 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

81 

Power and Propulsion

Technology

Capability

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025+

Highly efficient, powerful, portable, and supportable propulsion for increased persistence and mission effectiveness

Reduced 

Specific Fuel 

Consumption

Extreme 

Endurance

HEETE (core)

ESSP (core)

Ducted Fan 

Nutating

Disk

WTS 126

Fuel 

Cell

Advanced 

Lithium Ion

Extended 

Endurance

HEETE (engine)

ESSP (engine)

Hi Power 

Hybrid Sys

HP/LP Power 

Extraction

bridging the gap between the platform power requirements and the engine power extraction 

limitations. Additionally, LP power extraction promises to provide improvements to SFC for 

overall air vehicle energy efficiency. Some of the key technologies needed to implement a 

power-sharing architecture are reliable power management control logics, high-power highspeed solid-state power controllers (SSPCs), a modulating generator control unit (GCU), and 

high-capacity electrical accumulator units (EAUs).

The HP GCU can be used to reduce the HP generator output and thus in a similar manner 

reduce the load on the HP spool to allow the LP generator to fulfill the power demand. The 

EAUs will be used to support radar peak-power demands and the power demands of shortduration, defensive-directed energy weapons.

9.4.3 Future Opportunity

Work is still needed to demonstrate the shaft power void. However, the large-engine 

approach of high overall pressure ratios (going to typical small-engine-corrected flow levels) is 

not available to small engines because of the physical size constraints of turbomachinary. 

Therefore, nontraditional configurations need to be emphasized to achieve the next level of

capability. 

Concerning battery chemistries and fuel cells, in the near term (up to 5 years), incremental 

power and energy performance improvements will continue to be made in the area of 

rechargeable lithium ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries will see broader military and 

commercial application, and significant cost reductions will be made as the manufacturing base 

matures. Near-term availability of small, JP-8 fuel-compatible engines is expected. There is midterm (5 to 15 years) potential for significant incremental performance advances through the 

discovery and development of alternative lithium ion chemistries. Mid-term development of fuel 

cells with moderate power levels (100 W class) will begin to be introduced based on low-weight 

hydrocarbon fuels (e.g., propane). The technical feasibility of heavy hydrocarbon-fueled (e.g., 

JP-8) fuel cell systems will be proven at the kilowatt class. In the long term (beyond 15 years), 

there is the potential for revolutionary improvements through the discovery and development of 

completely new battery chemistries and designs. Figure 21 charts a course for power and 

propulsions capabilities and technologies. 

Figure 21. Propulsion and Power Roadmap. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

82 

10 MANNED-UNMANNED (MUM) TEAMING

10.1 Functional Description

For this discussion, MUM teaming refers to the relationships established between manned 

and unmanned systems personnel prosecuting a common mission as an integrated team. More 

specifically, MUM teaming is the overarching term used to describe platform interoperability 

and shared asset control to achieve a common operational mission objective. This term also 

includes concepts of “loyal wingman” for air combat missions and segments of missions such as 

MUM air refueling. This capability is especially vital for missions such as target cueing and 

handoff between manned and unmanned systems, where the operators not only require direct 

voice communications between the participants, but also a high degree of geospatial fidelity to 

accurately depict each team member’s location with regard to the object being monitored. 

MUM teaming was first employed in the 

late 1960s when the USAF flew AQM-34 

equipped with Maverick missiles from 

airborne C-130 aircraft. Over the 

intervening years, other experimental UAS 

were flown from manned aircraft and during 

the Predator ACTD from a submarine. In 

2002, the USAF demonstrated the ability to 

fly the MQ-1 from a flying C-130 also 

equipped with a FMV camera to prove a 

rapid, small-footprint deployment 

capability, and the ability to cooperatively 

prosecute targets with onboard and offboard systems. The Army also conducted 

MUM demonstrations beginning with the 

Airborne Manned/Unmanned Systems Technology (AMUST) Demonstration in 2001 with a 

follow-on Hunter Standoff Killer Team (HSKT) ACTD in 2006. During that demonstration, an 

AH-64D executed level of interoperability (LOI) 4 control of a RQ-5B Hunter UAS during a live 

fire exercise where Apaches lased for their own Hellfire missiles with the Hunter payload.

60 At 

these demonstrations, the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate successfully 

integrated a Mobile Commander’s Associate61, including UAS control, Link 16, and other 

various data links, into an Army airborne C2 system. This integration enabled an airborne C2

system operator located in a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter to control a Hunter UAS and its 

sensor, for the first time, as well as send and receive tactical information in flight between strike 

aircraft such as the FA-18, and reconnaissance aircraft such as JSTARS.

62

 

60 “Hunter Standoff Killer Team Successfully Tests Military Interoperability,” 16 September 2005, 

 To date, each of the 

demonstrations merely changed the location of the control of the vehicle off the ground. This 

http://aerodefense.ihs.com/news/2005/navy-air-systems-link-16.htm?WBCMODE=presenta. 61 “Mobile Commander’s Associate (MCA), Lockheed Martin, USA”,

http://defense-update.com/products/m/mca.htm . 62 Colucci, Frank, “MUM’s The Word,” Rotor & Wing Magazine, 1 November 2004, 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/attack/1817.html. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

83 

change was still significant because of the ability to more effectively conduct certain types of 

missions through collaboration of all assets. 

10.2 Today’s State 

Practical applications of MUM teaming continue to evolve as confidence in unmanned 

vehicle reliability and functionality matures. Employment concepts are limited by data links, 

vehicle control interfaces, and level of autonomy. One recent example of practical application is 

when the USMC fielded a laser designation capability for Shadow as an enhancement/enabler of 

sensor-to-shooter operations for enemy/target of interest engagement in April 2010. 

10.2.1 Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

MUM teaming has steadily increased 

as technology has improved and users 

have found new and innovative methods 

to exploit this enhanced mission 

capability. Current missions include 

reconnaissance, surveillance, and target 

acquisition (RSTA); transport; 

countermining; explosive ordnance 

disposal; and the use of armed unmanned 

tactical wheeled vehicles for checkpoint 

security inspections. The integration of 

one-system remote video terminal 

(OSRVT) technology and distributed 

UGV control into ground combat vehicles is 

leading to the adaptation of TTPs because all parties now receive the same picture at the same 

time, regardless of their location.63

 

6363 Lt. Col. Adam Hinsdale, former Chief, UAS Division, Department of the Army Aviation Directorate, was 

quoted in October 2007: “Everyone, regardless of the platform, receives the same information at the same time, 

leading to true interoperability, the Army’s key goal. The OSRVT is a vital component of manned/unmanned 

teaming, allowing all elements, air and ground, to view the same synchronized area of interest simultaneously for 

coordinated engagement, with either kinetic or nonkinetic effects.” UAS Video Terminal Connects Boots On The 

Ground To Eyes In The Sky, by Kim Henry, Redstone Arsenal, AL, (AFNS), 9 October 2007. 

 With over 4,000 OSRVT or like systems fielded between the 

Army, USMC, and USAF to date, it is clear that MUM teaming is becoming ever more pervasive 

in ground operations. These developments have also been the catalyst for the creation of the 

common robotic controller, a joint project between the Army and USMC to develop a universal, 

wearable controller to operate a wide variety of unmanned systems, including UGVs, UA, and 

unattended ground sensors. This effort is currently aimed at smaller platforms, but could be 

transitioned to include limited control (i.e., payload only) for larger platforms as the technology 

matures. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

84 

10.2.2 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

MUM teaming has been successfully demonstrated 

in combat operations to provide CCDRs with enduring 

surveillance of hostile activities in real/near-real time 

to accurately geolocate potential targets, to laserdesignate targets, and to provide battle damage 

assessment. UAS have proven successful in 

performing their missions largely because they are 

able to remain visually and aurally undetected by 

hostile forces. They are providing the CCDR with 

critical tactical data, which are used to plan and 

support combat operations. When used in support of 

ground operations, UAS have proven invaluable in 

providing near-real-time intelligence to commanders 

engaged in combat and have directly contributed to successful mission completion. Armed UAS 

have the ability to engage targets directly or cooperatively with other air and ground systems. 

Additionally, LOI 3 (control and monitoring of the UA payload in addition to direct receipt of 

UA data) has been demonstrated successfully in combat operations with attack helicopter crews.

The attack helicopter crew is able to see on their cockpit display the sensor outputs that give 

them overhead views to the target and surrounding area. This capability greatly enhances the 

attack helicopter crew’s ability to identify, classify, and verify target locations to reduce the risk 

of fratricide. In September of 2010, the Army conducted an integration exercise featuring 

Apache helicopter pilots controlling Shadow, Hunter and Raven UAs. 

The success of the exercise resulted in the inclusion of the LOI 2 and 3 UA control 

requirement into the AH-64, which gives the manned aircraft sensor and flight-path control and 

monitoring of the UA (less launch and recovery). The Apache Block III initial fielding is 

scheduled for 2012 and will incorporate LOI 2, 3, and 4 UA control. The AH-64 BLK III will 

have the capability to receive real-time UA FMV and the associated metadata (LOI 2), control 

the UA electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) payload (LOI 3), and dynamically task the UA flight 

path (LOI 4), all from the front seat of the Apache. The initial combat operations in Afghanistan 

and Iraq validated the urgent need to integrate UAS capabilities with manned aircraft, 

specifically the attack platforms. Commanders recognized that they could dramatically reduce 

sensor-to-shooter times and improve situational awareness of helicopter pilots, while drastically 

reducing collateral damage and the potential for fratricide. They crafted an Operational Needs 

Statement for attack helicopter MUM teaming capability that led to a rapid prototype system for 

the Apache called Video from Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Interoperability Teaming – Level 

2 (VUIT-2). The VUIT-2 system allows the AH-64 crew to receive video feeds from UA

utilizing C-Band transmission. The Army has renamed this effort MUMT-2 and expanded it to 

UH-60 Black Hawk and OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. 

Current MUM teaming applications are limited due to the fact the control interface currently 

requires a dedicated crew member to fly the UAS while another crew member flies the manned 

aircraft. However, some automated MUM mission segments are being developed. For example, 

the Navy and USAF have developed and demonstrated technology for MUM air refueling and 

have simulated cooperative MUM air combat missions. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

85 

10.2.3 Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMS)

MUM teaming is critical for the maritime environment. This is especially true for the 

undersea domain where physics prevent man from safely performing tasks to the same fidelity. 

There are many different aspects of MUM teaming for UMS that have been explored and 

implemented in various degrees: long-endurance undersea gliders send data ashore and receive 

human-initiated mission updates in near real-time; UUVs enable efficient port security, harbor 

defense, and mine clearance operations through change detection and autonomous investigation 

of mine-like objects; likewise, UUVs extend the footprint of manned hydrographic and 

bathymetric survey platforms to gather higher volumes of data while enabling people to focus on 

the tasks that require human oversight. Near-term enhancement, development and codification of 

Water Space Management/Prevention of Mutual Interference (WSM/PMI) doctrine and 

procedures will allow sophisticated collaboration between submarine or surface vessel operations 

and unmanned assets for mission accomplishment. Given the inherent challenges of the 

maritime environment, the future of MUM teaming will consist of multiple types of unmanned 

systems (UUV, USV, UAV, UGV) used collaboratively with manned platforms to collect, 

process, exploit, and disseminate data. An enduring and integrated net of undersea sensors 

partnered with USVs or UAVs for communication and controlled from a common command 

center will revolutionize how undersea missions are conducted by bringing transparency to an 

otherwise opaque battlespace. All maritime missions will benefit from reduced timelines and 

improved accuracy of information from which the combat commander can make engagement 

decisions. 

10.3 Problem Statement

While strides have been made over the past decade to further enhance MUM teaming 

capabilities, several challenges persist that will continue to affect the amount of time it takes this 

technology to transition from the invention and adaptation phase to the acceptance phase. This 

timing will also directly affect the development of MUM teaming TTPs, which in turn will 

dictate the speed of MUM teaming from CONOPS into DoD doctrine. 

Some of these challenges are technical. They range from near-term issues such as the limited 

ability to integrate and deconflict various radio frequencies across a secure communications 

network, to far-term issues such as the ability of one person to control multiple UASs and UGVs 

simultaneously while flying his or her primary aircraft. This ability requires a high degree of 

hardware and software interoperability, scalable autonomy, human system interfaces (HSIs), new 

collaborative control algorithms, and network mission tools. The platforms must do significant 

levels of onboard processing to not only reduce bandwidth required, but also collaborate with 

other unmanned vehicles without operator 

input. Other technical challenges result 

from the need to make tradeoffs between 

size, weight, and power limitations on the 

various platforms and the desire for 

increased performance and capability. One 

of the biggest potential challenges to 

MUM operations stems from the Services’ 

desire to introduce swarms (large numbers 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

86 

of micro-UAS operating semi-autonomously) into military operations with other manned and 

unmanned systems. 

Other MUM missions have different challenges including cargo, air refueling, interdiction in 

contested areas, electronic/network attack (EA), suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and 

other traditional air combat missions. The ability to communicate from a highly maneuverable 

aircraft to a highly maneuverable future UAS will require significant advances in autonomy and 

HSI. This advancement can be compounded if LPI communication is needed for missions such 

as EA, SEAD, or control of long-dwell insect-size vehicles collecting information inside 

buildings. 

10.4 Way Ahead (2011–2036)

Some key events will affect the future of MUM teaming over the next 25 years. As 

improvements in communications and sensor technologies evolve, new tactics will surely follow.

For instance, it should be expected that there will be a shift away from the current reliance on 

video with operators incorporating other sensors (such as audio or tactile) to augment the tactical 

picture. Also, as commanders continue to integrate multiple manned and unmanned systems into 

their operations, they will soon be able to implement a “field of view” approach, similar to the 

“God’s eye” perspective seen in many current video games. A commander will be able to view a 

target from multiple perspectives (i.e., UGV, UAS, or manned sensors), using multiple sensors, 

to obtain more robust and comprehensive situational awareness. As MUM advances, new HSI 

and autonomy will change the role of people in mission execution and dramatically increase their 

effectiveness.

The most significant advances in MUM operations will begin as Services migrate away from 

the current closed-loop scenario between sensor and shooter to networked systems. High 

endurance UAS already have mission teams geographically separated from the platform and 

from each other. Wide-area sensors are also changing the paradigm on STANAG 4586 LOIs and 

USIP development. Employing MUM segments as nodes on a larger network will change how 

missions are executed and will dramatically affect the combat effectiveness. 

Investments in technologies such as automated air refueling, tactical data link control of 

maneuverable aircraft, and autonomy in the near term will enable “loyal wingman” operations. 

The effectiveness of air missions will not be achieved by a collection of assets, but collaboration 

between manned and unmanned systems within the context of a network. These nodes on the 

network will have scalable transparent control, not the brittle closed-loop control and inflexible 

autonomy algorithms used today. 

“Everyone, regardless of the platform, receives the same information at the 

same time, leading to true interoperability; this is the Army’s key goal.

- Lt. Col. Adam Hinsdale,

 Chief, UAS Division,

 Department of the Army Aviation Directorate
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

87 

Figure 22. Manned Unmanned Teaming Roadmap.

The rapid growth in the OPTEMPO and demand for unmanned systems is a validation of 

their value to the CCDR. New concepts for the use of UAS, UGS, and UMS will result from

experiences gained in combat. In the near future, it is likely that MUM teaming will be 

incorporated into an expanded set of operations. Manned-Unmanned Teaming

Technology

Capability

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025+

Improvements to Levels of Interoperability (LOI) enhance mission effectiveness while Increasing Survivability

MUMT- 4

Control of 

UAV from 

other acft

LOI 2 

MUMT- 2

Air to Air

To Grnd

VUIT2

Air to Air

MUMT- 3

Payload 

Control

ROVER 6 ROVER 7

Manned / 

Unmanned 

Scout / ATK 

Teaming 

Rover 8

(hand Held On 

the Move) 

UAV FMV & 

TGT Data to 

Manned acft 

UAV FMV 

to manned 

acft 

OSRVT-5 

LOI 3 LOI 4 

LOI 5 

Unmanned 

Wingman 

LOI 6 

Unmanned 

Scout / ATK 

Cognitive 

Machine 

Learning 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

88 

11 SUMMARY 

DoD has made great strides in developing, producing, and fielding unmanned systems. These 

systems have been effectively integrated across air, ground, and maritime domains to support a 

wide range of Joint warfighting needs. The inherent advantages of unmanned systems, including 

persistence and reduced risk to human life, have been clearly demonstrated in combat operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

DoD envisions the continued expansion of unmanned systems in the future force structure. 

This expansion will include fielding additional systems in capability areas already supported by 

unmanned technologies, but also expanding into new mission areas not currently covered. As 

DoD defines a path toward this vision, a common set of challenges is apparent that cuts across all 

military Services, budgets, and all three domains of air, ground, and maritime. DoD, working 

together with industry, academia, and other Government agencies, will continue to map an 

affordable path forward to address these common challenges. Success in addressing the common 

issues discussed in this document and following the technology roadmaps summarized in Figure 

23 (see next page) is critical to achieving the full potential offered by unmanned systems 

technologies. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

89 

Figure 23. Summary of Technology Roadmaps.

STANAG 4586 Service 

Compliant UAS Orie nh : d architecture 

Common Data links 

and Encryption Se rvice 

Repositories 

Commo

• n Data standards across all 

se rvice s <.'lnd platforms 

Autonomy 

inte r oper ability 

Common Autonomy lntee:rate d MiYlned I 

Unmanned Te aming ~ Softvv ar e Common 

:C Re -use Ground Capab1htle s across platforms 

~ PoRs mii,rated to Stations lnt ct d Common 

(t:l Common GCS Archite cture ope rating P1 c 

~ .. mmDm~-=~~~~a.mmammmmmmmmm .. 0 

0 

= 

~ 

~ ;Q 

M;;Khine 

Reasoning 

Multi-Se nsor 

Data Fusion 

Robust decision 

making 

Neuro and 

Cognition Science 

Coope rative 

Contr ol 

Autonomous PED 

Evaluatton 

V&V Process 

Impr ovement 

Machine 

l earn in& 

Design for 

Certification 

Inte lligent 

Control 

~ Integratio n of Environmental Unde rstand in£: 

~ ~~~~~~~ PM~~i·'aiiM!"'I§h·!!d'"'·f'.! !Z~D!~a! ~aDJa~~~~~Z!~~maaD!a~~lm~~~~~m!~~m!m!llllllll .tmlm!!fibM!.!.!.I •• !.I:tJO.!.!@Mii.IJO.I • .!.I!..:; • .!'i'!.ie(J§f 

Auto nomous 

Collabor atio n 

o ·Small UAS SFAR Pro ced ures Airbo rne 

0 ·Safety Case: Mode: lin&: Ground Based Sense and Avoid 

~ ·lmti~ Sen se and Avoid Sen se l!lnd Avoid Techno locv 

~ ec hn o~ es Pe rfo rmance Stds 

Standards fo r 

Certification 

·Small UAS SFAR Procedures 

limited Ope ratio ns During Day or Night with Single 

or Multiple UAS Safe Operm1o nsfor DoD UAS 

Dynamic Ope rations 

Fo r Lorge UAS 

-Small UAS fht hts tn NAS MISSions 1n l ow Density Airspace 

DynamiC Ope r ations for 

large and Medium s1ze d UAS 

SHure Micro DOL & Singl e Chip T /R 

GaN Techn olorv 

Adv MIMO cooled Antennas Adv. MIMO Config., 

Network Path Diversity 

DSA/ WNaN 

Application s Elf. FEC & •·oiala-Rate" COL 

Improve d 

Compr ession (H.265) 

Confo rmal phased 

arri!'{ant ennas Opt1 cal Comms 

~ Sp e ctrum lmproved{lOOX) DynamiC ne twork Environmental Based Ad aptive 

.:C Flexible Systems Receiver Design reconfiguration Multi-functio n al Dynamic System Change s 

~ Lo-..\rer SWaP Sys Ant nnas 

u MJ{11141Hij:!mU!,.!,,flrn!.ftf111El,[!¥!.!.11@ih§.l!fl@flQ.if!.fl;(§!.fi.fi.!!f!M4ii§.¢1i.!.!,.!§.! .... ~ High Fidelity Unive rsal Auto Unive rsal Grou nd ,. 

0 Simulators / Tr aine rs Motio n Image ry Takeoff Contro l Statio n 

= 

~ I-

~ ;Q 

"' 

DoD Standards 

fo r UAS Pilots 

and Ope rato rs 

Manne d I Unmanned 

Teammg: 

WTS 126 

Duct ed Fan 

Nutatine Disk 

Hi Pow er 

Hyb rid Svs 

Erle nde d 

Endurance 

rainin ~ 

Pre· De ployment 

Tramint, TIPs f 

Lessons l e arne d 

bef or e arrrvmg 1n 

AOR 

HEETE (core ) 

ESSP (core) 

fu e l Ce ll 

And landing 

Systems 

Surrogate: UAS 

Support/ Trainine 

Improvement Plan 

Adv ance d 

Lithium lo n 

HP/ LP Power 

Common 

Paylo ads 

Univ trsi!ll 

Pilots and 

Ope rators 

HEETE (eneine) 

ESSP (e neine) 

Extreme 

ao~ EJ~~~~ml@&!fliMH.H;:q;.mmeij!J!,t.gJ:tij.t.l.fflijlj@J·':;n;.;;;,;;;;u;.; ii ma~a~~~!mCJ~~DJ~~a=DamErlract aazc~a~a~.;;f'HIJ,t!i!,i ca ~~-=~~~~~!C~~m!~~ll~ .i,,iqjt.!,lji@l@ij,iJi L0 12 L0 13 L0 14 L0 16 o UAV FMV OSRVT· S ROVER 6 ROVER 7 LOIS 

:: Rove r S 

~ (hand Held On 

I- the Move) 

Manned I MUMT· 4 

Contro l of 

UAV from 

other acft 

Unmanned UnmMne d 

Wmgman Scout/ ATK 

Te aming 

Cogn itive 

Machine 

Learnin g 

Unmanned 

Scout/ ATK 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

A-1 

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES

1. Unmanned Ground Systems Roadmap, Robotic Systems Joint Project Office, July 2009. 

2. Unmanned Ground Systems Roadmap, Robotic Systems Joint Project Office, Addendum, July 2010. 

3. U.S. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 2009-2047, 18 May 2009. 

4. U.S. Marine Corps Concept of Operations for USMC Unmanned Aircraft Systems Family of Systems, 

November 2009. 

5. U.S. Navy Information Dominance Roadmap for Unmanned Systems, December 2010. 

6. Emerging Spectrum Technology Dynamic Spectrum Access Workshop Final Report, DISA, DSO, July 

2009. 

7. Unmanned Aircraft System Beyond Line of Sight and Line of Sight Datalink Spectrum Technology 

Roadmap, UAS TF, Frequency and Bandwidth IPT, July 2010. 

8. Initial Unmanned Aircraft Systems Line of Sight and Beyond Line of Site Spectrum Findings, Interim 

Report, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force, Frequency and Bandwidth IPT, 30 May 2008. 

9. DoD Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, FY 2009-2034, April 6, 2008. 

10. U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2010-2035, 2010. 

11. Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Master Plan. November 9, 2004. 

12. Joint Direct Support of Aerial Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (JDSAISR) Initial Capabilities 

Document (ICD), 6 August 2010. 

13. U.S. Air Force Chief Scientist Report on Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science and 

Technology during 2010-2030, 15 May 2010. 

14. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Spectrum Report, Second Interim Report, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Task Force, Frequency and Bandwidth Integrated Product Team, September 30, 2010. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

B-1 

APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS

4G fourth generation

AAM air-to-air missile

AATD Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate

ABSAA airborne sense and avoid

ACAT Acquisition Category

ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

ADC analog-to-digital converter

AECV All Environment Capable Variant

AEODRS Advanced Explosive Ordnance Robotic System

AI airspace integration 

AMRDEC Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center

AMUST airborne manned/unmanned systems technology 

APU auxiliary power unit

ASM air-to-surface missile

ASW anti-submarine warfare

ATS air traffic services

AvGas aviation gasoline

BA Battlespace Awareness

BAMS broad-area maritime surveillance

C2 command and control

CA collision avoidance

CAP Combat Air Patrol

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CCDR Combatant Commander

CDL common data link

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNO Chief of Naval Operations

COA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

CONEMP concept of employment

CONOPS concept(s) of operations

COP common operational picture

COTS commercial, off-the-shelf

CSS combat services support

CV cargo variant

DDL digital data link

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIMA DARPA Interference Multiple Access 

DLI data link interface

DoD Department of Defense

DOTMLPF doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

DOTMLPF-P doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and 

policy

DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

DSA dynamic spectrum access

DSPM domain service portfolio management

EAU electrical accumulator unit

EMI electromagnetic interference

EMS electromagnetic spectrum

ESSP efficient small scale propulsion 

EW early warning

FA Force Application 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FCS Future combat system

FEC forward error correction
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

B-2 

FMV full-motion video

GaAs gallium arsenide 

GaN gallium nitride

GBSAA ground-based sense and avoid

GCS ground control station

GCU generator control unit

GDP gross domestic product

gMAV Gasoline-powered Micro Air Vehicle

GPS global positioning system

GUI graphical user interface

HAIPE High Assurance IP Encryption

HEETE highly efficient turbine engine 

HSKT Hunter Standoff Killer Team 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IED improvised explosive device

I-IPT Interoperability Integrated Product Team

IPSEC Internet Protocol Security

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

ITU International Telecommunication Union

JAUS

JCA

Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems

Joint Capability Area

JCGUAV Joint Capability Group Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

JMOC Joint Maritime Operations Center

JSIDL JAUS Service Interface Definition Language

JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System

JTS JAUS Tool Set

LCS littoral combat ship

LOS line of sight

LRU line replaceable unit

MALE medium-altitude, long-endurance

MDF multisensor data fusion

MIMO multiple-input, multiple-output

MISM motion imagery systems matrix

MISP motion imagery standards profile

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPG multiple power pod gas generator

MUM manned-unmanned

NAS National Airspace System

NII national information infrastructure

NSA National Security Agency

NSRDEC Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center

NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center

OA open architecture

ODUSD(R)RTPP Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness), Readiness and Training Policy 

and Programs

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom

OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom

OPTEMPO operational tempo

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSRVT one-system remote video terminal

OUSD(AT&L) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

PEO(LMW) Program Executive Officer of Littoral and Mine Warfare

QRF quick reaction force

RFI request for information

ROV remotely operated vehicle

RS-JPO Robotic Systems Joint Project Office

RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition

S&T science and technology
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

B-3 

SAA sense and avoid

SAE formerly known as the Society of Automotive Engineers, now known simply as SAE

SAR synthetic aperture radar

SATCOM satellite communications

SBIR small business innovation research

SBU sensitive but unclassified

SDO standards development organization

SDS spectrum-dependent system(s)

SF special forces

SFC specific fuel consumption

SIGNT signals intelligence

SOA service oriented architecture

SOCOM Special Operations Command

SOFC solid oxide fuel cell

SSPA solid state power amplifier

SSPC solid-state power controller

SSRA spectrum supportability and risk assessment

STANAG Standardization Agreement

STD-CDL standard common data link

STUAS small tactical unmanned aircraft system(s)

SuDDL secure micro-digital datalink

SWaP-C size, weight, power, and cooling

SWCC special warfare combatant-craft crewman

TOC

TPED

total ownership costs

tasking, processing, exploitation, and distribution

TTP tactics, techniques, and procedures

UA unmanned aircraft

UAS unmanned aircraft system(s)

UCAS unmanned combat aircraft system

UGS unmanned ground system(s)

UGV unmanned ground vehicle

UMS unmanned maritime system(s)

UMV unmanned maritime vehicle

USC United States Code

USIP UAS System Interoperability Profiles

USV unmanned surface vehicle

UUV unmanned underwater vehicle

UW unconventional warfare

VAATE versatile affordable advanced turbine engine

VBSS visit, board, search, and seizure

V&V verification and validation

WSARA Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act

WGS Wideband Global SATCOM

WNaN Wireless Network after Next

WRC Worldwide Radio Communication Conference
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

C-1 

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

Analysis and Production – The ability to integrate, evaluate, and interpret information from available 

sources and develop intelligence products that enable situational awareness. 

Battlespace Awareness – The ability to understand dispositions 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.

Collection – The ability to obtain required information to satisfy intelligence needs.

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.

Communicate – The ability to develop and present information to domestic audiences to improve 

understanding; and, to develop and present information to foreign audiences to affect their perceptions, will, 

behavior and capabilities to further U.S. national security or shared global security interests. 

Communicate Intent and Guidance – The ability to promulgate a concise expression of the operational 

purpose, assessment of acceptable operational risk, and guidance to achieve the desired end state.

Decide – The ability to select a course of action informed and influenced by the understanding of the 

environment or a given situation. 

Deployment and Distribution – The ability to plan, coordinate, synchronize, and execute force movement 

and sustainment tasks in support of military operations. Deployment and distribution includes the ability to 

strategically and operationally move forces and sustainment to the point of need and operate the Joint 

Deployment and Distribution Enterprise. (JL(D) JIC pg 5 and pages 14-21) 

Direct – The ability to employ resources to achieve an objective. 

Engagement – The ability to use kinetic and non-kinetic means in all environments to generate the desired 

lethal and/or non-lethal effects from all domains and the information environment. 

Force Application – The ability to integrate the use of maneuver and engagement in all environments to 

create the effects necessary to achieve mission objectives.

Health Readiness – The ability to enhance DoD and our Nation's security by providing health support for 

the full range of military operations and sustaining the health of all those entrusted to our care. 

Information Transport – The ability to transport information and services via assured end-to-end 

connectivity across the NC environment. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

C-2 

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance – The ability to conduct activities to meet the intelligence 

needs of national and military decision-makers.

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Dissemination – The ability to present information and 

intelligence products that enable understanding of the operational environment to military and national 

decision-makers.

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Planning and Direction – The ability to synchronize and 

integrate the activities of collection, processing, exploitation, analysis and dissemination resources to meet 

information requirements of national and military decision-makers.

Kinetic Means – The ability to create effects that rely on explosives or physical momentum (i.e., of, 

relating to, or produced by motion). 

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.

Maneuver – The ability to move to a position of advantage in all environments in order to generate or 

enable the generation of effects in all domains and the information environment. 

Maneuver to Engage (MTE) – The ability to move to a position of advantage in all environments in order 

to employ force.

Maneuver to Influence (MTInfl) – The ability to move to a position of advantage in all environments in 

order to affect the behavior, capabilities, will, or perceptions of partner, competitor, or adversary leaders, 

military forces, and relevant populations. 

Maneuver to Insert (MTI) – The ability to place forces at a position of advantage in all environments. 

Maneuver to Secure (MTS) – The ability to control or deny (destroy, remove, contaminate, or block with 

obstacles) significant areas, with or without force, in the operational area whose possession or control provides 

either side an operational advantage.

Mitigate – The ability to minimize the effects and manage the consequence of attacks (and designated 

emergencies on personnel and physical assets.

Monitor – The ability to adequately observe and assess events/effects of a decision.

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. 

Non-Kinetic Means – The ability to create effects that do not rely on explosives or physical momentum. 

(e.g., directed energy, computer viruses/hacking, chemical, and biological). 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

C-3 

Prevent – The ability to neutralize an imminent attack or defeat attacks on personnel (combatant/noncombatant) and physical assets. 

Processing / Exploitation – The ability to transform collected information into forms suitable for further 

analysis or action.

Protection – The ability to prevent/mitigate adverse effects of attacks on personnel (combatant/noncombatant) and physical assets of the United States, allies and friends.

Shape – The ability to conduct activities to affect the perceptions, will, behavior, and capabilities of partner, 

competitor, or adversary leaders, military forces, and relevant populations to further U.S. national security or 

shared global security interests.

Supply – The ability to identify and select supply sources, schedule deliveries, receive, verify, and transfer 

product and authorize supplier payments. It includes the ability to see and manage inventory levels, capital 

assets, business rules, supplier networks and agreements (to include import requirements) as well as assessment 

of supplier performance. 

Understand – The ability to individually and collectively comprehend the implications of the character, 

nature, or subtleties of information about the environment and situation to aid decision-making. 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036 

Intentionally left blank 
Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036