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

2007 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED

 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

Department of Defense,Washington,DC,20301-1000

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

188

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 Roadmap 2007-2032 

Executive Summary 

Page i 

Executive Summary 

Today’s military has seen an evolution in technology that is creating an entirely new capability 

to project power through the use of unmanned systems while reducing the risk to human life. 

The contributions of unmanned systems continue to increase. As of October 2006, coalition 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs), exclusive of hand-launched systems, had flown almost 

400,000 flight hours in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, Unmanned 

Ground Vehicles (UGVs) had responded to over 11,000 Improvised Explosive Device (IED) 

situations, and Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) had provided security to ports. As a result 

of these successes, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasized the importance of 

unmanned systems in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). 

Unmanned systems are highly desired by combatant commanders (COCOMs) for the many roles 

these systems can fulfill. Tasks such as mine detection; signals intelligence; precision target 

designation; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive (CBRNE) reconnaissance; and 

communications and data relay rank high among the COCOMs’ interests. These unmanned 

capabilities have helped reduce the complexity and time lag in the “sensor” component of the 

sensor-to-shooter chain for prosecuting “actionable intelligence.” Unmanned systems are 

changing the conduct of military operations in the GWOT by providing unrelenting pursuit 

combined with the elimination of threats to friendly forces; including injury, capture, or death. 

As the Department of Defense (DoD) develops and employs an increasingly sophisticated force 

of unmanned systems over the next 25 years (2007 to 2032), technologists, acquisition officials, 

and operational planners require a clear, coordinated plan for the evolution and transition of 

unmanned systems technology. With the publication of this document, individual roadmaps and 

master plans for UASs, UGVs, and UMSs (defined as Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) 

and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs)) have been incorporated into a comprehensive DoD 

Unmanned Systems Roadmap. This integrated Unmanned Systems Roadmap is the plan for 

future prioritization and funding of these systems development and technology, thus ensuring an 

effective return on the Department’s investment. Its overarching goal, in accordance with the 

Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG), is to guide military departments and defense agencies 

toward logically and systematically migrating applicable mission capabilities to this new class of 

military tools. This Roadmap highlights the most urgent mission needs that are supported both 

technologically and operationally by various unmanned systems. These needs, listed below, 

should be considered when prioritizing future research, development, and procurement of 

unmanned systems technology to ensure an effective return on the Department’s investment. 

1. Reconnaissance and Surveillance. Some form of reconnaissance (electronic and visual) is 

the number one COCOM priority applicable to unmanned systems. Being able to surveil 

areas of interest while maintaining a degree of covertness is highly desirable. The 

reconnaissance mission that is currently conducted by unmanned systems needs to increase 

standardization and interoperability to better support the broad range of DoD users. 

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

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

and increasing precision for GPS guided weapons is required. The ability to operate in highthreat environments without putting warfighters at risk is not only safer but potentially more 

effective than the use of current manned systems. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Executive Summary 

Page ii 

3. Counter-Mine Warfare. Since World War II, sea mines have caused more damage to US 

warships than all other weapons systems combined. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) 

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

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

destroy both land and sea mines. Unmanned Systems are a natural fit for this dangerous 

mission. 

4. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) Reconnaissance. The 

ability to find chemical and biologic agents and to survey the extent of affected areas is a 

crucial effort. 

Some of these missions can be supported by the current state-of-the-art unmanned technology 

where the capabilities of current or near-term assets are sufficient and the risk to warfighters is 

relatively low. Other mission areas, however, are in urgent need of additional capability. 

Current unmanned capabilities must evolve into the future DoD acquisition and operational 

vision. Current support to the warfighter must be sustained while making the transition, but 

every effort must be made to accommodate these evolving unmanned technologies along with 

more traditional technologies as soon as possible. The activities the Department is undertaking 

to address these mission areas are detailed within this Roadmap. 

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

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

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

Department in that direction. It is anticipated that future versions of the Roadmap will include 

specific methodology, metrics, and assignments to achieve the stated goals. 

Goal 1. Improve the effectiveness of COCOM and coalition unmanned systems through 

improved integration and Joint Services collaboration. 

Goal 2. Emphasize commonality to achieve greater interoperability among system controls, 

communications, data products, and data links on unmanned systems. 

Goal 3. Foster the development of policies, standards, and procedures that enable safe and 

timely operations and the effective integration of manned and unmanned systems. 

Goal 4. Implement standardized and protected positive control measures for unmanned systems 

and their associated armament. 

Goal 5. Support rapid demonstration and integration of validated combat capabilities in 

fielded/deployed systems through a more flexible prototyping, test and logistical support process. 

Goal 6. Aggressively control cost by utilizing competition, refining and prioritizing 

requirements, and increasing interdependencies (networking) among DoD systems. 

The long-term plan is to publish a truly integrated Unmanned Systems Roadmap in January 2009 

that builds on this effort and increases focus on manned and unmanned systems interoperability 

to achieve our future vision. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page iii 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................i 

Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................iii 

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................viii 

List of Tables................................................................................................................................viii 

List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................ix 

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

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

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

1.3. Vision ................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.4. Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3 

Chapter 2. Strategic Planning and Policy........................................................................................ 6 

2.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 6 

2.2. Congressional Direction....................................................................................................... 6 

2.3. Acquisition Policies ............................................................................................................. 7 

2.3.1. General .......................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.2. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ................................ 8 

2.3.3. DoD 5000 series............................................................................................................ 8 

2.4. Unmanned Systems Funding ............................................................................................. 10 

2.5. Departmental Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 11 

2.5.1. Naval Warfare ............................................................................................................. 11 

2.5.2. Ground Warfare........................................................................................................... 12 

2.5.3. Air Warfare ................................................................................................................. 12 

Chapter 3. Interoperability and Standards..................................................................................... 13 

3.1. Interoperability Requirements............................................................................................ 13 

3.2. Unmanned Systems Standards ........................................................................................... 13 

3.2.1. UAS Standards ............................................................................................................ 15 

3.2.2. UGV Standards ........................................................................................................... 16 

3.2.3. UMS Standards ........................................................................................................... 16 

3.2.4. Media Standards.......................................................................................................... 16 

3.3. Roadmap Interoperability Objectives ................................................................................ 17 

Chapter 4. COCOM Mission and Capability Needs ..................................................................... 19 

4.1. Why Unmanned Systems? ................................................................................................. 19 

4.2. Capability Requirements.................................................................................................... 19 

4.2.1. User Priorities Across COCOMs and Military Departments ...................................... 20 

4.2.2. UASs Priorities............................................................................................................ 20 

4.2.3. UGV Priorities............................................................................................................. 21 

4.2.4. UMS Priorities............................................................................................................. 22 

4.2.5. DoD Priorities ............................................................................................................. 23 

4.2.5.1. Reconnaissance .................................................................................................... 23 

4.2.5.2. Target Identification, and Designation................................................................. 23 

4.2.5.3. Counter Mine Warfare ......................................................................................... 23 

4.2.5.4. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) 

Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................... 23 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page iv 

4.3. Existing Joint Capabilities Being Filled by Unmanned Systems....................................... 24 

Chapter 5. Organizational Efforts ................................................................................................. 25 

5.1. Department of Defense (DoD)........................................................................................... 25 

5.1.1. Studies ......................................................................................................................... 25 

5.1.1.1. 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).......................................................... 25 

5.1.1.2. Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems (JUAS) Standards Study ............................... 25 

5.1.1.3. Unmanned Air Systems Requirements Study ...................................................... 26 

5.1.1.4. Office of Naval Research (ONR) Roles of Unmanned Vehicles......................... 26 

5.1.1.5. Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise (JGRE) Studies .............................................. 26 

5.1.2. Working Groups and Organizations............................................................................ 27 

5.1.2.1. Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise ........................................................................ 27 

5.1.2.2. Technical Support Working Group (TSWG)....................................................... 27 

5.1.2.3. Unmanned Systems Capabilities Conference (USCC) ........................................ 28 

5.1.2.4. Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) Working Group................... 28 

5.1.2.5. Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Material Review Board (JUAS MRB).......... 28 

5.1.2.6. Joint Unmanned Aircraft System Center of Excellence (JUAS COE) ................ 29 

5.1.2.7. UAS Airspace Integration JIPT ........................................................................... 29 

5.1.2.8. Navy Unmanned Systems Executive Steering Group.......................................... 29 

5.1.2.9. Joint Government/Industry Unmanned Systems Safety Initiatives ..................... 30 

5.1.3. Laboratory Activities................................................................................................... 30 

5.1.3.1. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) .............................................................. 30 

5.1.3.2. Office of Naval Research (ONR)/Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)................ 31 

5.1.3.3. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) ...................................................................... 31 

5.1.3.4. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) 

Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC)....................... 33 

5.1.3.5. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ................................... 34 

5.1.3.6. Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) ................................................ 36 

5.1.3.7. National Center for Defense Robotics (NCDR)................................................... 36 

5.2. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)......................................................................... 37 

5.2.1. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ....................................................................... 38 

5.2.2. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) .......................................................................................... 39 

5.3. Department of Transportation............................................................................................ 39 

5.3.1. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ..................................................................... 39 

5.4. Department of the Interior.................................................................................................. 40 

5.4.1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)................................................................................. 40 

5.4.2. Minerals Management Service.................................................................................... 40 

5.5. Department of Commerce.................................................................................................. 40 

5.5.1. National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) .......................... 40 

5.6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)................................................. 41 

Chapter 6. Technologies for Unmanned Systems ......................................................................... 43 

6.1. Technology Challenges...................................................................................................... 43 

6.2. Emerging, Applicable Technologies.................................................................................. 44 

6.3. Push Factors ....................................................................................................................... 44 

6.4. Contextual Factors ............................................................................................................. 47 

6.5. Pull Factors ........................................................................................................................ 48 

6.6. Unmanned Technology Objectives.................................................................................... 48 

6.6.1. Autonomy.................................................................................................................... 49 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page v 

6.6.2. Bandwidth Issues......................................................................................................... 49 

6.6.3. Cognitive Processes..................................................................................................... 49 

6.6.4. Common Control......................................................................................................... 50 

6.6.5. Communications.......................................................................................................... 50 

6.6.6. Cooperative Behavior.................................................................................................. 50 

6.6.7. Data Interfaces............................................................................................................. 51 

6.6.8. Dynamic Obstacle/Interference/Collision Avoidance (Including Humans) ............... 51 

6.6.9. Human Systems Integration (HSI) in Unmanned Systems ......................................... 52 

6.6.10. Launch and Recovery (L&R).................................................................................... 52 

6.6.11. Power Systems .......................................................................................................... 52 

6.6.12. Processor Technology ............................................................................................... 53 

6.6.13. Product Format.......................................................................................................... 53 

6.6.14. Reliability.................................................................................................................. 53 

6.6.15. Sensors ...................................................................................................................... 53 

6.6.16. Survivability.............................................................................................................. 54 

6.6.17. Weapons.................................................................................................................... 54 

Chapter 7. International Cooperation............................................................................................ 55 

7.1. Assessment of Foreign Robotics........................................................................................ 55 

7.2. International Robotics Agreements.................................................................................... 56 

7.2.1. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) .................................................................. 56 

7.2.2. Air Force ..................................................................................................................... 57 

7.2.3. Army............................................................................................................................ 58 

7.2.4. Navy ............................................................................................................................ 60 

7.3. Treaty Concerns for Unmanned Systems........................................................................... 64 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) ..................................................................... 65 

A.1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) ................................................................................ 65 

A.1.1. MQ-1 Predator............................................................................................................ 65 

A.1.2. MQ-1C Sky Warrior (formerly Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP)) ............... 66 

A.1.3. RQ-2 Pioneer.............................................................................................................. 67 

A.1.4. RQ-4 Global Hawk..................................................................................................... 68 

A.1.5. RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) ............................................ 69 

A.1.6. RQ-5A/MQ-5B Hunter............................................................................................... 70 

A.1.7. RQ-7 Shadow 200 ...................................................................................................... 71 

A.1.8. MQ-8 Fire Scout......................................................................................................... 72 

A.1.9. MQ-9 Reaper (formerly Predator B).......................................................................... 73 

A.1.10. Unmanned Combat Aircraft System – Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D).............. 74 

A.1.11. Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS)............................................................ 75 

A.1.12. Improved Gnat Extended Range (I-Gnat-ER) / Warrior Alpha ............................... 76 

A.1.13. Combat Medic UAS for Resupply and Evacuation.................................................. 77 

A.1.14. RQ-15 Neptune......................................................................................................... 78 

A.1.15. Maverick................................................................................................................... 79 

A.1.16. A160 Hummingbird ................................................................................................. 80 

A.1.17. XPV-1 Tern .............................................................................................................. 81 

A.1.18. XPV-2 Mako ............................................................................................................ 82 

A.1.19. Onyx Autonomously Guided Parafoil System ......................................................... 83 

A.1.20. Global Observer ....................................................................................................... 84 

A.1.21. RQ-14 Dragon Eye / Swift ....................................................................................... 85 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page vi 

A.1.22. Force Protection Aerial Surveillance System (FPASS) ........................................... 86 

A.1.23. Aqua / Terra Puma ................................................................................................... 87 

A.1.24. RQ-11 Pathfinder Raven .......................................................................................... 88 

A.1.25. Silver Fox ................................................................................................................. 89 

A.1.26. ScanEagle ................................................................................................................. 90 

A.1.27. Aerosonde................................................................................................................. 91 

A.1.28. Buster........................................................................................................................ 92 

A.1.29. Small Tactical UAS (STUAS) / Tier II UAS........................................................... 93 

A.1.30. RQ-16A MAV.......................................................................................................... 94 

A.1.31. Wasp......................................................................................................................... 95 

A.1.32. Tactical Mini-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TACMAV)............................................ 96 

A.2. Unmanned Airship Systems.............................................................................................. 97 

A.2.1. Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory (AAFL) .......................................................... 97 

A.2.2. Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) .................................................................. 98 

A.2.3. Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS).................................................. 99 

A.2.4. Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) ............................................................. 100 

A.2.5. Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform (REAP)........................................................... 101 

A.2.6. Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS) ............................................................ 102 

A.3. UAS Airspace Integration ............................................................................................... 103 

A.3.1. Overview .................................................................................................................. 103 

A.3.2. Background .............................................................................................................. 103 

A.3.2.1. Reliability.......................................................................................................... 104 

A.3.2.2. Regulation ......................................................................................................... 105 

A.3.2.2.1. Air Traffic Operations................................................................................ 105 

A.3.2.2.2. Airworthiness Certification........................................................................ 111 

A.3.2.2.3. Crew Qualifications ................................................................................... 112 

A.3.2.3. “Sense and Avoid” (S&A) Principle................................................................. 112 

A.3.3. Command, Control, Communications...................................................................... 115 

A.3.3.1. Data Link Security ............................................................................................ 115 

A.3.3.2. Redundant/Independent Navigation.................................................................. 115 

A.3.3.3. Autonomy.......................................................................................................... 116 

A.3.3.4. Lost Link ........................................................................................................... 116 

A.3.4. Future Environment.................................................................................................. 116 

A.3.5. DoD Organizations with Roles in UAS Airspace Integration.................................. 117 

A.3.5.1. OSD Oversight and Policy ................................................................................ 117 

A.3.5.2. Joint Staff Chartered Organizations .................................................................. 117 

A.3.5.3. Military Departments’ Chartered Organizations............................................... 118 

A.3.5.3.1. JIPT Mission .............................................................................................. 119 

A.3.5.3.2. JIPT Scope ................................................................................................. 119 

A.3.5.3.3. JIPT Two-Track Strategy........................................................................... 119 

A.3.5.3.3.1. Track 1 Definition ................................................................................... 121 

A.3.5.3.3.2. Track 2 Definition ................................................................................... 122 

A.3.5.3.3.3. UAS Airspace Integration Roadmap....................................................... 122 

A.3.6. Summary .................................................................................................................. 123 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs)................................................................... 125 

B.1. All-Purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS) ............................................................. 125 

B.2. Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV)....................................................................................... 126 

B.3. Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) .................................................................................... 127 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page vii 

B.4. BomBot, MK 4 MOD 0 EOD Robot............................................................................... 128 

B.5. MV-4 ............................................................................................................................... 129 

B.5. MV-4 ............................................................................................................................... 129 

B.6. Dragon Runner ................................................................................................................ 130 

B.7. Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle (TUGV) ................................................ 131 

B.8. Man-Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) MK 1 MOD 0 (PackBot EOD) and MK 2 

MOD 0 (TALON) ............................................................................................................. 132 

B.9. Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE) ..................................................................... 133 

B.10. Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System (MDARS) ............................... 134 

B.11. Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot (MARCbot)...................................... 135 

B.12. Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle (MULE)....................................... 136 

B.13. Omni-Directional Inspection System (ODIS) ............................................................... 137 

B.14. MK 3 MOD 0 Remote Ordnance Neutralization System (RONS) ............................... 138 

B.15. Robo-Trencher............................................................................................................... 139 

B.16. Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV).................................................................. 140 

B.17. Throwbot ....................................................................................................................... 141 

B.18. Toughbot ....................................................................................................................... 142 

B.19. Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation .................................................. 143 

B.20. Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (BEAR) ................................................................ 144 

B.21. Crusher Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle................................................................ 145 

B.22. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Unmanned Ground 

Reconnaissance (CUGR) UGV (CUGV).......................................................................... 146 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs)................................................................. 147 

C.1. Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)........................................................................... 147 

C.1.1. Heavyweight UUVs.................................................................................................. 147 

C.1.1.1. Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) (AN/BLQ-11) ................. 147 

C.1.1.2. Mission Reconfigurable UUV System (MRUUVS) ......................................... 148 

C.1.1.3. Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) UUV Increment 3............................. 149 

C.1.1.4. Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (BPAUV)................. 150 

C.1.1.5. Advanced Development UUV (ADUUV)......................................................... 151 

C.1.2. Lightweight Vehicles (LWVs) ................................................................................. 152 

C.1.2.1. SMCM UUV Increment 1 ................................................................................. 152 

C.1.2.2. SMCM UUV Increment 2 ................................................................................. 153 

C.1.3. Man-Portable UUVs................................................................................................. 154 

C.1.3.1. MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH) Search-Classify-Map (S-C-M) UUV ............ 154 

C.1.3.2. Reacquisition-Identification (R-I) UUV............................................................ 155 

C.1.3.3. Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS)...................................................... 156 

C.1.3.4. Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) .......................................................... 157 

C.1.3.5. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP) – VSW Neutralization 

1st Generation – UUV – Neutralization (UUV-N) .................................................... 158 

C.2. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) .............................................................................. 159 

C.2.1. Fleet Class USVs...................................................................................................... 159 

C.2.1.1. SPARTAN......................................................................................................... 159 

C.2.1.2. Unmanned Sea Surface Vehicle (USSV) .......................................................... 160 

C.2.1.3. Mine Warfare (MIW) USV ............................................................................... 161 

C.2.1.4 ASW USV .......................................................................................................... 162 

C.2.2. Snorkeler Class USVs .............................................................................................. 163 

C.2.2.1. AN/WLD-1 Remote Multi-mission Vehicle (RMMV)..................................... 163 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Table of Contents 

Page viii 

C.2.3. Harbor Class USVs................................................................................................... 164 

C.2.3.1. Protector (7-M Harbor Class USV)................................................................... 164 

C.2.4. X Class USVs ........................................................................................................... 165 

C.2.4.1. X Class USV...................................................................................................... 165 

Appendix D. Unmanned Systems Points of Contact ................................................................. 166 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions...................................................................................... 168 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 DoD Unmanned Systems, Present and Future Roles..................................................... 2 

Figure 1.2 Joint Services Roadmap for Achieving DoD Vision for Unmanned Systems .............. 3 

Figure 2.1 DoD Annual Funding Profile for Unmanned Systems ($M)....................................... 10 

Figure 2.2 OSD Organizational Support for Unmanned Systems ................................................ 11 

Figure 5.1 ONR Unmanned System Efforts ................................................................................. 31 

Figure 5.2 Example ARL Unmanned System Efforts................................................................... 32 

Figure 5.3 ARL MAST research................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 5.4 Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation TAGS-CX & BEAR .............. 34 

Figure 5.5 Unmanned Vehicles – The Increasing Challenge of Autonomy ................................. 35 

Figure 5.6 The Winner of DARPA Grand Challenge 2005: Stanford University’s “Stanley”.... 36 

Figure 5.7 Artist Depiction of NOAA/Altair UAS Over the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary............................................................................................................................... 41 

Figure 6.1 Trend in Processor Speed ............................................................................................ 46 

Figure 6.2 Relationship of Processor Speed and Memory............................................................ 46 

Figure A.1 Joint FAA/OSD Approach to Regulating UASs.......................................................104 

Figure A.2 U.S. Military Aircraft and UAS Class A Mishap Rates (Lifetime), 1986–2006......105 

Figure A.3 UASs and Airspace Classes of the NAS...................................................................107 

Figure A.4 JUAS COE’s Categories of UASs ............................................................................109 

Figure A.5 JIPT Functional Organization...................................................................................118 

Figure A.6 Track 1 and Track 2 Strategy....................................................................................120 

Figure A.7 Track 1, Track 2, and SC-203...................................................................................121 

Figure A.8 Proposed UAS Airspace Integration Roadmap ........................................................123 

List of Tables 

Table 2.1 FY2007–13 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems.............................................. 10 

Table 3.1 Organizations Developing Standards for Unmanned Systems ..................................... 15 

Table 4.1 COCOM and Military Department UAS Needs Prioritized By Aircraft Class ............ 21 

Table 4.2 COCOM and Military Department UGV Needs Prioritized By Echelon..................... 21 

Table 4.3 COCOM and Military Department UUV/USV Needs Prioritized By Class................ 22 

Table 5.1 DHS Capability Requirements Applicable to UASs..................................................... 37 

Table 5.2 DHS-Sponsored Unmanned Aircraft Demonstrations.................................................. 38 

Table 6.1 Selected Enabling Technologies for Unmanned System Applications......................... 47 

Table A.1 Alignment of UAS Categories with FAA Regulations.............................................. 108 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

List of Abbreviations 

Page ix 

List of Abbreviations 

AAFL Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory 

ABCI Arizona Border Control Initiative 

ABV Assault Breacher Vehicle 

ACADA automatic chemical agent detector 

alarm 

ACAT acquisition category 

ACC Air Combat Command 

ACD&P Advanced Component Development 

and Prototypes 

ACOMM acoustic communication 

ACR area coverage rate 

ACTD advanced concept technology 

demonstration 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast 

ADUUV advanced development unmanned 

undersea vehicle 

AFDD Air Force Doctrine Document 

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory 

AGL above ground level 

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics 

AMCM airborne mine countermeasures 

AMO air and marine operations 

AMRDEC Aviation and Missile Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center 

ANS Autonomous Navigation System 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ARDEC Armaments Research, Development, 

and Engineering Center 

ARL Army Research Laboratory 

ARO Army Research Office 

ARTS All-Purpose Remote Transport System 

ARV Armed Robotic Vehicle 

ASC Aeronautical Systems Center 

ASD Assistant Secretary of Defense 

ASIP Advanced Signals Intelligence Program 

ASTM American Society of Testing and 

Materials 

ASW anti-submarine warfare 

AT&L Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATO Army Technology Objective or Air 

Tasking Order 

AVGAS aviation gasoline 

BAMS broad area maritime surveillance 

BAWS biological aerosol warning sensor 

BCT brigade combat team 

BEAR battlefield extraction-assist robot 

BLOS beyond-line-of-sight 

BPAUV battlespace preparation autonomous 

undersea vehicle 

BULS bottom UUV localization system 

C2 command and control 

CBA Capabilities-Based Assessment 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, 

nuclear 

CBRNE chemical, biological, radiological, 

nuclear, explosive 

CCD charge-coupled device (camera); 

camouflage, concealment, and 

deception (mission area) 

CDL common data link 

CENTAF U.S. Central Command Air Force 

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command 

CFE Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces 

in Europe 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIO chief information officer 

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

CN3 communication/navigation network 

node 

CNMAWC Commander, Naval Mine and Antisubmarine Warfare Command 

CNO Chief of Naval Operations 

COA certificate of authorization 

COCOM combatant commander 

CONOPS concept of operations 

CONUS Continental United States 

COS Committee on Standards 

COTS commercial off-the-shelf 

CRRC combat rubber raiding craft 

CSD contaminated surface detector 

C-SWAP cost, size, weight, and power 

CTA Collaborative Technology Alliance 

CUGR CBRN Unmanned Ground 

Reconnaissance 

CUGV CBRN unmanned ground 

[reconnaissance] vehicle 

DACP Defense Acquisition Challenge 

Program 

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency 

DEA data exchange agreement 

DFU dry filter unit 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DoD Department of Defense 

DSPO Defense Standardization Program 

Office 

DVL Doppler velocity log 

EDM Engineering Development Model 

ELOS equivalent level of safety 

EMD Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development 

EOD explosive ordnance disposal 

EO/IR electro-optical/infrared 

ERAST Environmental Research Aircraft and 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

List of Abbreviations 

Page x 

Sensor Technology 

ER/MP Extended Range/Multipurpose 

ESM electronic support measures 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration or 

Functional Area Analysis 

FCS Future Combat Systems 

FL Flight Level 

FLTC Future Long-Term Challenges 

FNA Functional Needs Analysis 

FNC Future Naval Capability 

FPASS force protection aerial surveillance 

system 

FSA Functional Solutions Analysis 

FSW feet of sea water 

FYDP Future Years Defense Program 

GCS ground control station 

GEMI Global Exchange of Military 

Information 

GHMD Global Hawk maritime demonstration 

GIG Global Information Grid 

GMR ground mapping radar 

GPS global positioning system 

GSTAMIDS Ground Standoff Mine Detection 

System 

GTOW gross takeoff weight 

GWOT Global War on Terrorism 

HDS hydrographic Doppler sonar 

HF high frequency 

HFE heavy fuel engine or Human Factors 

Engineering 

HRI human-robot interface or interaction 

HS high speed 

HSI human systems integration 

HTF high tow force 

HULS hull UUV localization system 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

ICD Initial Capabilities Document 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICS integrated computer system 

IDAS intrusion detection and assessment 

IEA information exchange program annex 

IED Improvised Explosive Device 

IER information exchange requirement 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

I-Gnat Improved Gnat 

IMC instrument meteorological conditions 

INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces 

Treaty 

INMARSAT International Marine/Maritime Satellite 

INS inertial navigation system 

IOC initial operational capability 

IPL integrated priorities list 

IR infrared 

ISO International Standards Organization 

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance 

JAUS Joint Architecture for Unmanned 

Systems 

JCAD joint chemical agent detector 

JCGUAV Joint Capability Group on Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicles 

JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and 

Development System 

JFC Joint Forces Commander 

JGR Joint Ground Robotics 

JGRE Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise 

JIPT Joint Integrated Product Team 

JLENS Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted 

Sensor 

JP jet petroleum; Joint Publication 

JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

JRP joint robotics program 

JSLNBCRS Joint Service Light Nuclear Biological 

Chemical Reconnaissance System 

JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System 

JUAS Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

JUAS COE Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Center of Excellence 

JUAS MRB Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Material Review Board 

J-UCAS Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems 

JUEP Joint UAV Experimentation Programme 

JUSC2 Joint Unmanned Systems Common 

Control 

KLV Key, Length, Value 

LAGP Learning Applied to Ground Robots 

L&R launch and recovery 

LCS littoral combat ship 

LH2 liquid hydrogen 

LIMES Language for Intelligent Machines 

LMRS Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance 

System 

LMW Littoral and Mine Warfare 

LPUMA littoral precision underwater mapping 

LOS line-of-sight 

LRIP low-rate initial production 

LSA Light Sport Aircraft 

LSTAT Life Support for Trauma and Transport 

MACE mine area clearance equipment 

MARCbot Multifunction, Agile, RemoteControlled Robot 

M&S modeling and simulation 

MASPS Minimum Aviation Safety Performance 

Standards 

MAST Micro Autonomous Systems and 

Technology 

MAV micro air vehicle 

MCM mine countermeasures 

MCMTOMF mean corrective maintenance time for 

operational mission failures 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

List of Abbreviations 

Page xi 

MCWL Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory 

MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Program 

MDARS Mobile Detection, Assessment, and 

Response System 

MEMS microelectromechanical systems 

MGV manned ground vehicle 

MIW mine warfare 

MMA multimission maritime aircraft 

MOA memorandum of agreement 

MOGAS motor gasoline 

MOLLE modular lightweight load-carrying 

equipment 

MOPS Minimum Operating Performance 

Standards 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MOUT military operations in urban terrain 

MPEG Motion Picture Experts Group 

MPRF Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance 

Force 

MP-RTIP Multiplatform Radar Technology 

Insertion Program 

MRUUVS Mission Reconfigurable Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicle System 

MSL mean sea level 

MS-OBS multi-static off-board source 

MTCR Missile Technology Control Regime 

MTI moving target indicator 

MTRS Man-Transportable Robotic System 

MULE multifunction utility/logistics equipment 

MURI Multidisciplinary University Research 

Initiative 

MXF Media Exchange Format 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NAUS near autonomous unmanned systems 

NAVAIDS navigation aid system 

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command 

NCDR National Center for Defense Robotics 

NGEODRV Next Generation Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal Robotic Vehicle 

NGS non-Government standard 

NII Networks and Information Integration 

NIST National Institute for Standards and 

Technology 

NOAA National Oceanographic and 

Atmosphere Administration 

NORDO No Radio 

NPOR non-program of record 

NRL Naval Research Laboratory 

NSCT ONE Naval Special Clearance Team ONE 

NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

OCONUS Outside the Continental United States 

OCU operator control unit 

ODIS Omni-Directional Inspection System 

ONR Office of Naval Research 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

OSR Optimum Speed Rotor 

OTA other transaction authority 

OTH over the horizon 

OUSD Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense 

PA project arrangement or agreement 

PAN percussion-actuated nonelectric 

PBFA Policy Board on Federal Aviation 

PG planning group 

PIA Post-Independent Analysis 

POE Program Executive Officer 

POM Program Objective Memorandum 

POP plug-in optical payload 

POR program of record 

PSA Portfolio Systems Acquisition 

PSMRS Platform Soldier Mission Readiness 

System 

PTDS Persistent Threat Detection System 

PTF Planning Task Force 

PTIR precision track illumination radar 

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review 

RACS Robotics for Agile Combat Support 

R&D research and development 

RAID Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment 

RC radio-controlled 

RDECOM Research, Development, and 

Engineering Command 

RDT&E research, development, test and 

evaluation 

REAP Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform 

REF Rapid Equipping Force 

REV robotic evacuation vehicle 

REX robotic extraction vehicle 

RF radio frequency 

RHIB rigid hull inflatable boat 

R-I reacquisition-identification 

RMV remote mine-hunting vehicle 

RONS Remote Ordnance Neutralization 

System 

RSJPO Robotic Systems Joint Program Office 

RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, and target 

acquisition 

RTCA Radio Technical Commission for 

Aeronautics 

S&A sense and avoid 

SAC special airworthiness certificate 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAR synthetic aperture radar 

SAS synthetic aperture sonar 

SATCOM satellite communications 

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research 

SC Special Committee 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

List of Abbreviations 

Page xii 

S-C-M search-classify-map 

SDD System Development and 

Demonstration 

SDO standards development organization 

SEIT Systems Engineering and Integration 

Team 

SLS sea-level standard 

SMCM surface mine countermeasure 

SMPTE Society of Motion Picture and 

Television Engineers 

SOCOM Special Operations Command 

SOF Special Operations Forces 

SPG Strategic Planning Guidance 

SSG Senior Steering Group 

SSGN submersible, ship, guided, nuclear 

SSN submersible, ship, nuclear 

STANAG standardization agreement 

STT Strategic Technology Team 

STTR Small Business Technology Transfer 

STUAS small tactical unmanned aircraft system 

SUAS small unmanned aircraft system 

SUGV small unmanned ground vehicle 

SuR surveillance radar 

TAB Technology Advisory Board 

TACMAV Tactical Mini-Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle 

TARDEC Tank-Automotive Research, 

Development & Engineering Center 

TARS tethered aerostat radar system 

TATRC Telemedicine and Advanced 

Technology Research Center 

TBD to be determined 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 

System 

TCDL tactical common data link 

TCS tactical control system 

TESS tactical engagement support system 

TSWG Technical Support Working Group 

TTP tactics, techniques, and procedures 

TUAV tactical unmanned aerial vehicle 

TUGV tactical unmanned ground vehicle 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle 

UCAS Unmanned Combat Air System 

UCAS-D Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier 

Demonstration 

UCAV unmanned combat air vehicle 

UDS unmanned dipping sonar 

UGV unmanned ground vehicle 

UHF ultra-high frequency 

UMS Unmanned Maritime System 

UNTIA United Nations Transparency in 

Armaments Resolution 

UOES user-operational evaluation system 

UPI PerceptOR Integration 

USAMRMC U.S. Army Medical Research and 

Materiel Command 

USBL ultra-short baseline 

USBP U.S. Border Patrol 

USCC Unmanned Systems Capabilities 

Conference 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USSV unmanned sea surface vehicle 

USV unmanned surface vehicle 

UTAS USV towed array system 

UUV unmanned undersea vehicle 

UUV-N unmanned underwater vehicle - 

neutralization 

UXO unexploded ordnance 

VDOC Vienna Document 1999 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VHF very high frequency 

VMC visual meteorological conditions 

VPN virtual private network 

VSW very shallow water 

VTOL vertical takeoff and landing 

VTUAV VTOL tactical unmanned aerial vehicle 

VUAV VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle 

WA Wassenaar Arrangement 

WLAN wireless local area network 

XML Extensible Markup Language 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Page 1 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

1.1. Purpose 

This Unmanned Systems Roadmap provides a strategy to guide the future development of 

military unmanned systems and related technologies in a manner that leverages across their 

various forms while meeting joint warfighter needs. It also prioritizes the funding and 

development of unmanned systems technology within the Department of Defense (DoD) to 

ensure an effective return on the Department’s investment. 

As each Military Department develops a wide range of unmanned capabilities for its unique roles 

and missions, an unprecedented level of coordination and collaboration is possible to meet the 

identified capability needs of the COCOMs and reduce acquisition costs by requiring greater 

standardization and modularity across the Military Departments. Individual Military Department 

planning documents for unmanned aircraft, ground, and maritime systems have been 

incorporated into this comprehensive, integrated Unmanned Systems Roadmap. By 2009, this 

Roadmap will become a single, joint-coordinated, acquisition and technology deployment 

strategy that will encompass all the Department’s unmanned systems efforts. 

1.2. Scope 

This document covers all U.S. defense unmanned systems. The definition below is modified 

from the existing Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 definition of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to 

provide a working definition of an “unmanned system.” 

Unmanned Vehicle. A powered vehicle that does not carry a human operator, can be operated 

autonomously or remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or 

nonlethal payload. Ballistic or semi-ballistic vehicles, cruise missiles, artillery projectiles, 

torpedoes, mines, satellites, and unattended sensors (with no form of propulsion) are not 

considered unmanned vehicles. Unmanned vehicles are the primary component of unmanned 

systems. 

This Unmanned Systems Roadmap is focused on the future. All science and technology efforts, 

future acquisition, and research projects should be consistent with the tenets of this document. 

While there is a risk of stifling innovation if all future unmanned systems conform to strict 

requirements, there is a balance between innovation and standardization that each individual 

effort must consider. Existing acquisition programs are not expected to make significant 

changes, especially at the expense of delaying delivery of critical capabilities to the warfighter or 

at a significant increase to development costs. However, each Military Department should 

consider the direction the DoD is heading and implement changes into existing programs 

consistent with the goals, when practical. 

1.3. Vision 

The DoD will develop and employ an increasingly sophisticated force of unmanned systems over 

the next 25 years (2007 to 2032). This force must evolve to become seamlessly integrated with 

manned systems as well as with other unmanned systems. The Department will pursue greater 

autonomy in order to improve the ability of unmanned systems to operate independently, either 

individually or collaboratively, to execute complex missions in a dynamic environment. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Page 2 

Figure 1.1 illustrates how unmanned systems are already employed in a significant number of 

roles. The systems are broken out by Military Department to illustrate areas with current and 

potential future collaboration. Reconnaissance, strike, force protection, and signals collection 

are already being conducted by fielded systems, and acquisition programs are developing 

systems to support the warfighter in even broader roles. 

Figure 1.1 DoD Unmanned Systems, Present and Future Roles 

COCOMs’ warfighting missions and capability needs are the focus of this Roadmap, as 

illustrated in Figure 1.2. The Roadmap emphasizes missions and capabilities in terms of their 

air/sea/land domains without regard to Military Department. The vision for these systems is that, 

regardless of originating Military Department, they will quickly evolve to the point where 

various classes of unmanned systems operate within and between these domains in a cooperative 

and collaborative manner to meet the joint warfighers’ needs. The ultimate vision is for a UAS 

to be teamed with a UGV over land and with a UMS over water in combined arms roles and to 

be integrated with manned systems to extend and augment warfighter manned capabilities. 

STRIKE/ 

TIME-CRITICAL 

STRIKE FORCE 

PROTECTION 

ANTI SUBMARINE 

WARFARE 

SURFACE 

WARFARE 

MINE 

WARFARE 

AIR WARFARE 

ELECTRONIC 

WARFARE 

METOC 

OCEANOGRAPHY 

DIGITAL MAPPING 

COMMUNICATIONS 

NAVIGATION 

NETWORK NODE 

COMBAT SAR 

WEAPONS OF MASS 

DESTRUCTION/ SPECIAL CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 

SEA 

BASING 

EOD/IED 

DEFEAT 

FIREFIGHTING 

OBSTACLE 

PLACEMENT / 

PAYLOAD DELIVERY 

WEAPONS 

DELIVERY 

TARGET 

DESIGNATION 

TARGET 

SERVICES / 

INSPECTION 

PSYCHOLOGICAL 

OPERATIONS / 

INFORMATION 

OPERATIONS 

SUPPRESSION OF 

ENEMY AIR 

DEFENSES

MARITIME 

INTERDICTION 

OPERATIONS ARMY

NAVY 

AIR FORCE 

Operational 

In Acquisition 

Future Vision 

INTELLIGENCE, 

SURVEILLANCE, AND 

RECONNAISSANCE 

(ISR) 

UAS 

UGV 

UUV 

USV 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Page 3 

Figure 1.2 Joint Services Roadmap for Achieving DoD Vision for Unmanned Systems 

1.4. Goals and Objectives 

The DoD is developing a wide range of unmanned system capabilities across each domain. The 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is responsible for ensuring that these capabilities 

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

implementing joint standards, ensuring interoperability, balancing the portfolio, and controlling 

costs. To this end, the following broad goals are intended to achieve key unmanned system 

capabilities: 

Goal 1. Improve the effectiveness of COCOM and coalition unmanned systems through 

improved integration and Joint Services collaboration. 

Objective 1.1. Conduct concept demonstration/warfighter experimentation with 

promising technologies. This step would allow for early assessment to help define 

realistic requirements underpinned by sound operational concepts. 

Objective 1.2. Conduct risk reduction to mature technologies. This step allows the 

Military Departments to finalize capability requirements and to establish funding for 

formal program initiation while overcoming the technology transfer challenges. 

A 

I 

R

S 

E 

A 

L 

A 

N 

D 

RECONNAISSANCE 

TACTICAL STRIKE 

COMMS RELAY 

SIGINT COLLECTION

MARITIME PATROL

AERIAL REFUELING

SURVEILLANCE / BATTLE MGMT 

AIRLIFT

SEAD 

PENETRATING STRIKE

INTEGRATED STRIKE / SEAD

COUNTER AIR 

INT. STRIKE/SEAD/C-AIR

VSW RECON 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Unmanned Surface Systems 

Unmanned Ground Vehicles 

Unmanned Undersea Systems 

SUB. AUTONOMOUS MAPPING 

INSPECTION / ID 

MAN PORTABLE CN3 

TELEOPERATED EOD 

SHIP DEPLOYED CN3

MCM (INTERIM) 

MINE NEUTRALIZATION

ISR

SHIP DEPLOYED MCM INFORMATION OPS

OCEANOGRAPHY ASW PAYLOAD DEL.

MCM INTEL PREP

SUB TRCK & TRAIL

TIME CRITICAL STRIKE 

ISR / MARITIME SURVEIL

MARITIME INTERDICT OPS

SOF RIVERINE

SURFACE WARFARE

MCM SEARCH/SWEEP

ASW ASW-MS

ARMED ASW/MS/SUW

MAN PORTABLE EOD 

ANTI-P MINE NEUTRALIZATION 

SCOUT/ISR/NBC RECCE/DIRECT FIRE/CROWD CONTROL

AT / FP MISSIONS 

ACTIVE RANGE CLEAR & DISRUPT LGE-VEHICLE IEDS

EXPEDITIONARY FACILITY PATROL & SURVEILLANCE

 LETHAL & NONLETHAL FORWARD DEPLOYED FP

FCS MANEUVER, MANEUVER SUPPORT & SUSTAINMENT 

 COLLABORATIVE COMBINED ARMS ENGAGEMENT 

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Page 4 

Goal 2. Emphasize commonality to achieve greater interoperability among system controls, 

communications, data products, and data links on unmanned systems. 

Objective 2.1. Field secure common data link (CDL) communications systems for 

unmanned systems control and sensor product data distribution. (BLOS and LOS) 

Objective 2.1.1. Improve capability to prevent interception, interference, 

jamming, and hijacking. Seek integrated solutions between technology, tactics, 

training, and procedures. 

Objective 2.1.2. Migrate, as appropriate, to a capability compliant with the 

Software Communications Architecture of the Joint Tactical Radio System when 

available. 

Objective 2.2. Increase emphasis on “common control” and “common interface” 

standards to allow for greater interoperability of unmanned systems. 

Objective 2.3. Ensure compliance with the existing DoD/Intelligence Community 

Motion Imagery Standards Board metadata standard and profiles for all unmanned 

systems capable of full motion video. 

Goal 3. Foster the development of policies, standards, and procedures that enable safe and 

timely operations and the effective integration of manned and unmanned systems. 

Objective 3.1. Promote the development, adoption, and enforcement of Government and 

commercial standards for the design, manufacturing, and testing of unmanned systems. 

Objective 3.2. Coordinate with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other 

applicable Federal transportation organizations to ensure the operations of DoD 

unmanned systems adhere to collision avoidance requirements (airspace, waterspace, and 

ground) comparable to the requirements of their manned counterparts. 

Objective 3.3. Develop and field unmanned systems that can “sense” and autonomously 

avoid other objects in order to provide a level of safety equivalent to comparable manned 

systems. 

Goal 4. Implement standardized and protected positive control measures for unmanned systems 

and their associated armament. 

Objective 4.1. Develop a standard unmanned systems architecture and associated 

standards for all appropriate unmanned systems. 

Objective 4.2. Develop a standard unmanned systems architecture and associated 

standards for unmanned systems capable of weapons carriage. 

Goal 5. Support rapid integration of validated combat capabilities in fielded/deployed systems 

through a more flexible test and logistical support process. 

Objective 5.1. Develop and field reliable propulsion alternatives to gasoline-powered 

internal combustion engines. 

Objective 5.2. Develop common, high-energy-density power sources (primary and 

renewable) for unmanned systems that meet their challenging size, weight, and space 

requirements, preferably common with manned systems as well. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Page 5 

Goal 6. Aggressively control cost by utilizing competition, refining and prioritizing 

requirements, and increasing interdependencies (networking) among DoD systems. 

Objective 6.1. Compete all future unmanned system programs. 

Objective 6.2. Implement Configuration Steering Boards to increase the collaboration 

between engineering and operations to field vital capability within budget constraints. 

Objective 6.3. Develop common interoperability profiles for development, design and 

operation of unmanned systems. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 6 

Chapter 2. Strategic Planning and Policy 

2.1. Background 

Unmanned systems are currently serving in key operational roles in the GWOT and routinely 

garner enthusiastic support from the warfighters who employ them. The operational utility and 

potential of unmanned systems are growing at an accelerating rate throughout DoD to the extent 

that unmanned systems will inevitably have a continued and greater presence within the force 

structure over the foreseeable future. The Department is, therefore, committed and is 

organizationally postured to shape and capitalize on unmanned systems technology advances to 

better serve the warfighters. 

This Roadmap is focused on providing capability to the warfighter and fostering interoperability 

of air, ground, and sea systems — both unmanned and manned. The Roadmap describes 

unmanned systems in the current force structure as well as systems currently in development. 

The combination of these efforts into a single document with a common vision represents the 

initial strategy and schedule by which the Department intends to capitalize on unmanned systems 

to execute missions that today are largely conducted with manned systems. Elements such as the 

vision, strategy, schedules, and technology investments will be further refined when the 2009 

publication of the Unmanned Systems Roadmap is prepared. 

2.2. Congressional Direction 

In Section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2001 (Public Law 106-398),1

 Congress stated two key, overall goals for the DoD with respect to 

UAS and UGV development: 

3⁄4 By 2010, one third of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force should be unmanned, 

and 

3⁄4 By 2015, one third of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) operational ground combat 

vehicles should be unmanned. 

Since this 2001 expression of Congressional intent to advance the introduction of unmanned 

systems into the Joint Forces, the DoD has taken positive steps toward achieving those goals. 

Congress assisted the continued accelerated fielding of existing UASs by amending Section 142 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006, which contained a provision limiting the 

initiation of new UASs. Section 141 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

FY 2007 makes it clear that the limitations contained in the 2006 authorization act do not apply 

to systems under contract, previously procured, or for which funds have been appropriated but 

not yet obligated.2

 

1

 These goals and associated reporting requirements are found in section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat 1654A-38). 

2

 Section 141 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 (Public Law 109-364, 120 Stat 

2116) amending Section 142 of National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 

3164). 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 7 

In response to Section 941 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 

an interim report was provided by DoD to address unmanned systems requirement generation 

and acquisition processes. The assessment of the Department in the report is that current policies 

for capabilities generation, acquisition and sustainment processes, and DoD organizational 

structures for unmanned systems development are very much aligned with Congressional intent 

without additional policy development. By recognizing and pursuing the potential of unmanned 

systems to provide improved capability to the Nation’s warfighters, the Department oversees and 

manages the focused development of unmanned systems from a single, centralized, 

organizational vantage point within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)). This Roadmap enables the Department to take 

deliberate, appropriate, operationally effective steps toward fulfilling the goals of having one 

third of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force be unmanned by 2010 and having one 

third of the Army’s FCSs operational ground combat vehicles be unmanned by 2015. 

2.3. Acquisition Policies 

2.3.1. General 

Development and acquisition of UASs, UMSs, and UGVs are governed by a myriad of DoD 

directives that provide policy and direction for specific developments or classes of development 

activities. Because unmanned systems are really “systems of systems,” including components 

such as platforms, sensors, weapons, command and control architectures, computers, and 

communications, the Military Departments and program managers must integrate the policy of 

multiple documents into their program plans. The following is a partial reference list of key 

DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) directives of interest to the unmanned systems 

community: 

3⁄4 3222.3 DoD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program 9/08/2004 

3⁄4 4630.5 Interoperability and Supportability of IT and National Security Systems (NSS) 

5/5/2004 

3⁄4 4640.13 Management of Base and Long-Haul Telecommunications Equipment and Military 

Services 12/05/1991 

3⁄4 4650.1 Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum 6/08/2004 

3⁄4 4650.5 Positioning, Navigation, and Timing 6/2/2003 

3⁄4 5030.19 DoD Responsibilities on Federal Aviation and National Airspace System Matters 

6/15/1997 

3⁄4 5100.35 Military Communications-Electronics Board (MCEB) 3/10/1995 

3⁄4 5144.1 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DoD Chief 

Information Officer (ASD(NII)/DoD CIO) 5/02/2005 

3⁄4 8000.1 Management of DoD Information Resources and Information Technology 2/27/2002 

3⁄4 8100.1 Global Information Grid (GIG) Overarching Policy 9/19/2002 

3⁄4 8100.2 Use of Commercial Wireless Devices, Services, and Technologies in the DoD Global 

Information Grid (GIG) 4/14/2004 

3⁄4 8190.1 DoD Logistics Use of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Standards 5/5/2000 

3⁄4 8320.2 Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense 12/02/2004 

3⁄4 8500.1 Information Assurance 10/24/2002 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 8 

2.3.2. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) 

JCIDS supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council (JROC) in identifying, assessing and prioritizing joint military capability 

needs. CJCSI 3170.01E.3 describes the process all military departments should follow when 

identifying, assessing, prioritizing and determining solutions for needed capabilities. 

Furthermore, JCIDS “implements an enhanced methodology using joint concepts that will 

identify and describe existing or future shortcomings and redundancies in warfighting 

capabilities; describe effective solutions; identify potential approaches to resolve those 

shortcomings; and provide a foundation for further development.”4 

As part of the JCIDS policy and implementation, rigorous assessment and analysis are required 

before a decision can be made about which (materiel or nonmateriel) approach to pursue in 

resolving identified capability gaps or redundancies. Performing a Capabilities-Based 

Assessment (CBA) results in the specific identification of a viable, affordable military solution. 

A CBA comprises four types of analysis: Functional Area Analysis (FAA), Functional Needs 

Analysis (FNA), Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA), and Post-Independent Analysis (PIA). 

A FAA identifies the operational tasks, conditions, and standards needed to achieve military 

objectives. A FNA assesses the ability of the current and programmed warfighting systems to 

deliver needed capabilities, produces a list of capability gaps that require solutions, and indicates 

the time frame in which those solutions are needed. A FSA identifies potential approaches to 

satisfying the capability needs including product improvements to existing materiel, adoption of 

interagency or foreign materiel solutions, and initiation of new materiel programs. A PIA

independently reviews the FSA to ensure the latter was thorough and the recommended 

approaches are reasonable possibilities to deliver the capability identified in the FNA.3

Each of the above analyses affords DoD the opportunity to identify and examine rigorously 

capability gaps and potential materiel or nonmaterial solutions, both manned and unmanned, to 

those requirements. The policies and implementation of JCIDS via these analyses are how 

unmanned systems will be assessed for their ability to meet the capability gaps and potential for 

greater integration with, and/or replacement of, manned systems in the future. Furthermore, the 

JCIDS analyses also take into consideration the additional factors of timing, affordability, 

technical soundness, and sustainability associated with potential unmanned system solutions in 

order to maximize the investment return in all domains of unmanned systems. 

Go to http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/3170_01.pdf for additional information 

on the JCIDS process. 

2.3.3. DoD 5000 series 

Following validation of the requirement through the JCIDS process, unmanned systems 

capability requirements are satisfied through the execution of acquisition programs in the same 

manner as manned systems through DoDD 5000.1 and DoDI 5000.2.4

 In accordance with 

DoDD 5000.1, “The primary objective of Defense acquisition is to acquire quality products that 

satisfy user needs with measurable improvements to mission capability and operational support, 

 

3

 CJCSI 3170.01E, Enclosure A, p. A-5. 

4

 Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, 12 May 2003, and 

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, 12 May 2003. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 9 

in a timely manner, and at a fair and reasonable price.”5 DoDD 5000.1 further states, “Advanced 

technology shall be integrated into producible systems and deployed in the shortest time 

practicable.”6 DoDI 5000.2 requires the preparation of an analysis of alternatives for potential 

and designated acquisition category (ACAT) I programs.7 The purpose of the analysis of 

alternatives is “an analytical comparison of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and life 

cycle cost of alternatives that satisfy established capability needs.”8

 

As with JCIDS, DoDD 5000.1 and DoDI 5000.2 direct that rigorous analysis be undertaken to 

assess the ability of the potential materiel solution to meet validated requirements in the context 

of other considerations such as affordability, timeliness, and suitability. Because the Defense 

acquisition system deliberately seeks affordable advanced technology solutions and JCIDS 

identifies the mission requirements and the associated time frame in which those requirements 

should be met, existing policies position the Department to satisfy departmental needs and meet 

Congressional intent with regard to unmanned systems policy and development. When a 

materiel solution is deemed as the appropriate path for satisfying a capability need, preference is 

given to advanced technology in accordance with DoDD 5000.1. Unmanned systems are 

considered as potential solutions because they are considered advanced technology and are 

assessed for feasibility as part of the PIA. 

Go to http://akss.dau.mil/dapc/index.html for more information on the DoD 5000 series 

documents. 

 

5

 DoDD 5000.1, Section 4.2, p. 2. 

6

 DoDD 5000.1, Section 4.3.2, p. 2. 

7

 DoDI 5000.2, Enclosure 6, Resource Estimation, paragraph E6.1.5. 

8

 “Defense Acquisition Guidebook,” 16 December 2004, paragraph 3.3, Analysis of Alternatives. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 10 

2.4. Unmanned Systems Funding 

Unmanned systems investments continue to grow as additional capability requirements are 

generated by Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and as COCOMs gain 

confidence in the operational contributions of unmanned systems. The trend toward adoption of 

unmanned systems solutions is anticipated to accelerate through the Future Years Defense 

Program (FYDP). The level of current and planned investments in unmanned systems is 

depicted in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1. 

Table 2.1 FY2007–13 President’s Budget for Unmanned Systems 

PORs 

FY08PB ($M) 

Funding 

Source FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 TOTAL

RDT&E* $198.2 $215.4 $199.8 $167.5 $129.3 $58.5 $20.0 $989

PROC* $106.5 $39.3 $29.7 $18.3 $17.9 $156.3 $481.5 $849

UGV 

O&M* $156.0 $5.7 $8.8 $10.3 $11.0 $12.1 $12.7 $217

RDT&E $760.8 $814.8 $1246.7 $1334.9 $1181.8 $859.1 $839.5 $7,038

PROC $878.4 $1370.3 $2025.1 $2010.5 $1725.7 $1750.8 $1585.7 $11,346

UAS 

O&M $590.0 $352.3 $367.7 $421.2 $458.8 $501.5 $552.0 $3,244

RDT&E $43.8 $22.7 $34.5 $77.0 $86.0 $101.9 $131.9 $498

PROC $1.7 $2.7 $3.2 $4.8 $40.8 $25.0 $25.1 $103

UMS 

O&M $4.3 $3.1 $2.8 $2.3 $3.9 $5.9 $6.9 $29

TOTAL $2731.5 $2825.4 $3949.6 $4041.6 $3657.3 $3461.3 $3643.5 $24,310

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

$2,825.4

$3,643.5

$3,657.3

$2,731.5

$3,461.3

$4,041.6

$3,949.6

$0.0

$500.0

$1,000.0

$1,500.0

$2,000.0

$2,500.0

$3,000.0

$3,500.0

$4,000.0

$4,500.0

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Figure 2.1 DoD Annual Funding Profile for Unmanned Systems ($M) 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 11 

2.5. Departmental Responsibilities 

DoD has a well-established organization for effective management, coordination, and budgeting 

for the development and procurement of unmanned systems. The Portfolio System Acquisition 

(PSA) Directorate within OUSD(AT&L) is responsible for executing strategic direction that 

shapes and governs capability and product line portfolios through insight and oversight and 

horizontal integration across the OSD, Military Departments, and Joint Staff. Within PSA, 

unmanned systems are recognized both as elements of a product line portfolio, and thus 

supported by this Unmanned Systems Roadmap, and as contributors to multiple-capability 

portfolios, given the significant variety of missions that unmanned systems perform. 

Additionally, the PSA Directorate is responsible for synchronizing the development of an 

unmanned systems integration strategy. Three Deputy Directorates coordinate horizontally on a 

regular basis and address management and budgeting for unmanned systems across respective 

domains as compared to management by individual Military Departments. All PSA actions and 

decisions regarding unmanned systems are informed by coordination with th Military 

Department; and a variety of forums exist to enable continuous collaboration between PSA, the 

Joint Staff, and the Military Departments in addressing issues such as program performance, 

funding allocations, technology investments, and standards. See Figure 2.2. 

Figure 2.2 OSD Organizational Support for Unmanned Systems 

2.5.1. Naval Warfare 

The Naval Unmanned Systems Executive Steering Group was established in 2005 by the Navy 

Staff (OPNAV N8) in support of Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) guidance to develop an 

unmanned vehicle strategy that moves the Navy from joint deconfliction to integration to 

interdependence and that accelerates the introduction of unmanned vehicles into the force. The 

Navy last updated the Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Master Plan in November 2004, and 

the first Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) Master Plan is currently in internal Navy review. 

UAS PTF 

OUSD(AT&L) 

PSA 

Air Warfare Land Warfare Naval Warfare 

JGRE 

ASD(NII) 

PBFA 

(Airspace Policy)

JROC 

JUAS COE 

Joint Chiefs of 

Staff 

A&T 

JFCOM 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 2 Strategic Planning and Policy 

Page 12 

2.5.2. Ground Warfare 

Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise (JGRE) policy developed in accordance with direction from 

Congress and DoD is to perform the following: 

3⁄4 Oversee a consolidation of efforts, 

3⁄4 Concentrate on establishing definitive robotics operational capabilities, and 

3⁄4 Pursue critical technologies to satisfy capability needs. 

The JGRE approach involves additional direction and prioritization and takes into account nearterm emerging requirements and GWOT needs; mid-term and long-term technology maturation; 

and greater collaboration between warfighters, laboratories, and program managers to link 

doctrine, technology, and capability needs. 

As a management tool for UGV development coordination, the JGRE has instituted the Joint 

Ground Robotics (JGR) Technical Advisory Board (TAB), which coordinates across the Joint 

Staff and Military Departments the ground robotics acquisition and the efforts to map technology 

developments (from DoD labs, industry, and academia) to the most pressing military issues and 

joint priorities. The JGR 06 Council prioritizes and allocates Advanced Component 

Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) and System Development and Demonstration (SDD) 

investments based on assessments of technology maturity and feasibility associated with 

technologies recommended by the TAB. These efforts ensure technologies are assessed, 

matured, and transitioned to programs of record (PORs) to satisfy validated requirements for 

ground applications across all the Military Departments. Examples of success include the joint 

development, upgrade, and sustainment of explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) robots that are 

used by all Military Departments in theater to counter Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). 

2.5.3. Air Warfare 

The UAS Planning Task Force (PTF) was established in 2001 to be the single focal point within 

the DoD to guide UAS planning and execution, in coordination with the Military Departments, 

Joint Staff, and other agencies. The UAS PTF promotes payload commonality by developing 

and enforcing interface standards, ensuring Military Department cooperation, leveraging UAS 

contributions to precision targeting, promoting joint experimentation for integrating UAS into 

combat operations, assisting the transition of promising UAS-related technologies, and resolving 

overarching export policy and airspace issues. The UAS PTF published three DoD UAS 

roadmaps (formerly “unmanned aerial vehicle roadmaps”) as a technology roadmap, which 

provided DoD with the opportunity to plan for UAS development and employment over the next 

25 years. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 13 

Chapter 3. Interoperability and Standards 

3.1. Interoperability Requirements 

Interoperability is the ability to operate in synergy in the execution of assigned tasks (JP1-02). 

Properly implemented, it can serve as a force multiplier and can simplify logistics. 

DoDD 5000.1 establishes the requirement to acquire systems and families of systems that are 

interoperable.9

 DoD’s unmanned systems will need to demonstrate interoperability on a number 

of levels: 

3⁄4 Among different systems of the same modality. The Army’s OneSystem common ground 

control station (GCS) for its MQ-5 Hunter, RQ-7 Shadow, and MQ-1 Warrior UASs is an 

example of this level of existing interoperability. 

3⁄4 Among systems of different modalities. The planned ability of ground and air vehicles of the 

Army’s FCS to work cooperatively is an example of this level of future interoperability. 

3⁄4 Among systems operated by different Military Departments under various concepts of 

operations (CONOPSs) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP), i.e., in joint 

operations. An example of this is the Joint Forces Air Component Commanders’ Air 

Tasking Order (ATO). 

3⁄4 Among military systems and systems operated by other entities in a common environment. 

The ability of military UASs to share the National Airspace System (NAS) and international 

airspace with commercial airliners and general aviation is an example of this level of future 

interoperability. 

3⁄4 Among systems operated by non-DoD organizations, allies, and coalition partners, i.e., in 

combined operations. The MQ-9 Reapers of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 

the Air Force and the RQ-1/MQ-1 Predators of the Italian Air Force and U.S. Air Force are 

limited (same modality, same model), existing examples of this level of interoperability. 

Interoperability is achieved by buying common components, systems, and software and/or by 

building systems to common standards. It is most affordable when built into the DoD systems 

during the design and acquisition phases, and formal standards best ensure interoperability is 

incorporated during these phases. 

3.2. Unmanned Systems Standards 

Standards (formal agreements for the design, manufacture, testing, and performance of 

technologies) are a key enabler of interoperability. PL104-11310 requires Federal organizations 

to adopt commercial standards where practical rather than expending its resources to create or 

maintain similar ones, specifically in the case of military standards. Where needed standards do 

not exist or prove insufficient, OMB Circular A-11911 directs Federal employees to work within 

consensus-based standards development organizations (SDOs) to create such standards. SDOs 

are domestic or international organizations that plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary 

 

9

 DoDD 5000.1, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.10. 

10 Public Law (PL) 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. 

11 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 1998. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 14 

consensus standards using agreed upon procedures that define openness, consensus, balance, due 

process, and appeals. DoD 4120.24-M12 requires that DoD first consider using non-Government 

standards (NGSs), or support revising or developing a NGS to meet DoD needs, in preference to 

using Federal documents whenever feasible. In addition to interoperability, using standards also 

promotes product quality assurance, furthers DoD commercial acquisition goals, conserves DoD 

resources, supports the U.S. industrial base, promotes dual-use technology, and improves DoD’s 

mobilization capabilities. 

Recognizing the relationship between interoperability and standards, the Secretary of Defense 

delegated responsibility to the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who 

assigned the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO) as the executive agent to 

encourage and coordinate DoD’s role in standards development and use. DSPO is the DoD 

representative on the Congressionally mandated Interagency Committee for Standards Policy, 

which is chaired by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and consists of 

representatives from most Federal agencies. DoD’s unmanned community, represented by Naval 

Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) PMA-263, began developing UAS standards for NATO in 

the mid-1990s as a participant in NATO’s Planning Group 35 (PG-35). Beginning in 2002, a 

number of SDOs began creating committees within their ranks to address the needs of the 

unmanned community across the spectrum of U.S. and international, as well as military, civil, 

and commercial, users of unmanned systems (see Table 3.1). DSPO reviews and coordinates 

standards developed by these SDO committees for adoption by DoD.

DoD personnel are actively participating within these SDOs in the following roles to develop 

standards for unmanned systems: 

3⁄4 Ensuring DoD-relevant standards are being created, 

3⁄4 Guarding against wording in standards that would be at cross purposes with DoD’s needs 

(e.g., compromising DoD’s right to self-certify aircraft airworthiness), and 

3⁄4 Preventing duplication of standard-creating efforts across SDOs. 

This last role is important because the practices of individual industry often provide the starting 

point of community-wide standards and make the participation of industry experts, which is 

largely voluntary, crucial in creating worthwhile standards; therefore, it becomes important to 

not squander industry’s voluntary support to these SDOs. Through their consensus-based 

processes, SDOs help protect the proprietary concerns of their commercial participants yet draw 

on the expertise of these participants to produce standards for the good of the unmanned 

community. DoD personnel should encourage and complement, not supplant, the participation 

of commercial industries in SDOs. Table 3.1 describes the organizations with which DoD 

members are now involved in developing standards for unmanned systems. 

The DoD unmanned community participates in standards development through three avenues: 

3⁄4 NATO Standardization Agency, through the work of its Joint Capability Group on 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (JCGUAV), 

3⁄4 OSD JGRE, through its Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS), and 

 

12 DoD 4120.24-M, Defense Standardization Program Policies and Procedures. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 15 

3⁄4 Military Department UAS program offices, through their UAS Airspace Integration Joint 

Integrated Product Team (JIPT). 

Each coordinates (or should coordinate) its products with DSPO. A fourth, Federal venue for 

unmanned standards, NIST, has, with DoD participation, worked primarily to establish 

terminology for autonomous capabilities. 

Table 3.1 Organizations Developing Standards for Unmanned Systems 

SDO Category of information 

AIAA* ASTM* RTCA* SAE* 

Certification ANSI ANSI/ISO ANSI 

UAS Committee UAV COS* F38 SC-203 AS-4, others 

 - Formed Oct 2002 Jul 2003 Dec 2004 Aug 2004 

 - No. of Members ~15 ~200 ~200 ~120 

No. of Standards 

 - Produced 60 15,000 152 8300 

 - On Aviation 7 200+ 152 4000+ 

 - Adopted by DoD 3 2572 0 3240 

 - Recognized by FAA 0 30+ 152 Numerous 

 - Produced on Unmanned Systems 1 8 0 1 

 - In Work on Unmanned Systems 0 12 3 4 

* AIAA = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; ASTM = American Society of Testing and Materials; COS = Committee on 

Standards; RTCA = Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics; SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers

3.2.1. UAS Standards 

The leaders of the UAS program offices in the Military Departments are the 303d Aeronautical 

Systems Wing (Air Force), PMA-263 (Navy), and SFAE-AV-UAS (Army). Together, they 

formed the UAS Airspace Integration JIPT in 2005 to address common issues and formulate a 

common approach to gaining access to airspace outside of military special-use airspaces for their 

unmanned aircraft. The JIPT is chartered to provide “recommendations for regulations, policies, 

and standards” that will lead to eventual acceptance of unmanned military aircraft routinely 

flying among civilian, manned aircraft. Having identified an automated “sense and avoid” 

(S&A) capability and secure, robust communication links as the two foremost challenges to 

achieving this vision, the JIPT is working in close association with the FAA-chartered RTCA 

SC-203 committee on unmanned aviation that has as its objective to solve the same two issues. 

Although neither group has set a firm timetable for producing an S&A (or a control and 

communication) recommendation, such a deliverable is not expected before 2010. Until then, 

DSPO has adopted ASTM F2411 as an interim performance standard for UAS S&A systems, 

and conformance with it can be cited as a risk-mitigating measure in DoD requests for 

certificates of authorization (COAs) to the FAA. 

The JIPT is organized into issue-focused subteams and support-focused activity centers (see 

Figure A.5), one of which is a standards development activity center. Its first activity has been to 

perform a standards gap analysis to identify airworthiness, operations, and crew certification 

topics for which standards are lacking or insufficient. The initial survey identified gaps for 

catapults, recovery wires/nets, auto-takeoff and auto-land, and weapons security, among others, 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 16 

to be worked by SDOs. One such SDO, ASTM International and its F-38 UAS Committee, 

published a limited standards gap analysis for unmanned airworthiness in 2005 (ASTM F2501), 

and its recent F2585 standard for pneumatic and hydraulic catapults was adopted for DoD use by 

DSPO in 2006. The organization of JIPT is depicted in A.3. 

In addition to the JIPT’s standards activities, PMA-263 continues to support NATO JCGUAV’s 

interoperability efforts in unmanned aviation. JCGUAV subsumed NATO’s three Military 

Department UAS-related groups (PG-35, Air Group 7, and Task Group 2) in 2006. Its major 

accomplishments to date have been Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4586 for UAS 

message formats and data protocols, STANAG 4660 for interoperable command and control 

links, STANAG 4670 for training UAS operators, and STANAG 7085 for the CDL 

communication system, which has been mandated by OSD since 1991. It has also drafted 

STANAG 4671 for UAS airworthiness. 

3.2.2. UGV Standards 

JAUS began in 1995 as an effort by the Army’s program office for UGVs in the Aviation and 

Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal to 

establish a common set of message formats and data protocols for UGVs made by various 

manufacturers. Deciding to convert JAUS to an international industry standard, the program 

office approached the SAE, an SDO with robotics experience, which established the AS-4 

Unmanned Systems Committee in August 2004. AS-4 has three subcommittees focused on 

requirements, capabilities, and interfaces and an experimental task group to test its recommended 

formats and protocols before formally implementing them. It plans to complete its conversion of 

JAUS and issue it as an SAE standard during fourth quarter FY2009. Although AS-4 is open to 

its members’ creating standards on other aspects of unmanned systems beyond message formats 

and data protocols for UGVs, much of this broader work is now being undertaken by other UASrelated SDOs. STANAG 4586 is unmanned aviation’s counterpart to JAUS. 

3.2.3. UMS Standards 

The Navy’s Program Executive Officer of Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO(LMW)) formally 

adopted JAUS message formats and data protocols for use with its unmanned undersea, surface, 

and ground vehicles in 2005. Working through SAE AS-4, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

(NUWC) has been expanding JAUS to serve the UMS community. It has found only 21 percent 

of UMS message formats to be directly compatible with the formats of JAUS, with the high 

percentage of new formats needed possibly due to the operation of UMSs in three dimensions 

versus the two dimensions of UGVs, for which JAUS was developed. 

3.2.4. Media Standards 

NGSs exist that provide a framework for storing digital video content. One such framework is 

the Media Exchange Format (MXF), which provides an architecture for exchanging digital video 

content as a file. An MXF file has a file header that includes metadata providing information on 

the video content, also referred to as the “essence,” that follows the file header. A footer 

terminates the file. The MXF metadata are composed of objects that are encoded using the Key, 

Length, Value (KLV) coding scheme. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 17 

KLV is defined in SMPTE 336M-2001.13 The key indicates what kind or type of data will be 

presented in the payload. The length describes how many bytes are expected in this set of data. 

The value yields the actual payload of the length previously described. The KLV protocol 

provides a common interchange for all compliant applications irrespective of the method of 

implementation or transport.14 KLV is the standard that the Department is implementing. 

The benefit of KLV lies in its use with MXF. It was designed and implemented to improve filebased interoperability among servers, workstations, and other content-creation devices. These 

should result in improved workflows and in more efficient working practices than is possible 

with mixed and proprietary file formats. It is not compression-scheme-specific; it simplifies the 

integration of systems using Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and digital video formats as 

well as future compression strategies. In other words, the transportation of these different files 

will be independent of content and will not dictate the use of specific manufacturers’ equipment. 

Any required processing can simply be achieved by automatically invoking the appropriate 

hardware or software codec. However, MXF is designed for operational use; therefore, all the 

handling processes are seamless to the user. 

3.3. Roadmap Interoperability Objectives 

To provide future, seamless interoperability by DoD UASs with its UGVs and UMSs, a single 

standard for message formats and data protocols is needed where two such standards, 

STANAG 4586 and JAUS, exist today. Currently, some level of overlap exists between these 

two standards in that both are being applied to UASs [JAUS/SAE to smaller tactical unmanned 

aerial vehicles (TUAVs)] and some initiatives are underway that are attempting to apply and 

demonstrate STANAG 4586 for USVs and potentially other platform types. The long-term goal 

within DoD is the evolution to a unified standard where practical. An effort to integrate or 

combine these two standards is being pursued by the Joint Unmanned Systems Common Control 

(JUSC2) advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), with the placing of an engineer 

in both SAE-4 and PG-35 working groups as a fully participating and voting member of both 

groups. This initiative has led to the identification of a common approach that both groups are 

now pursuing that will lead to one interoperability standard that can be applied for development 

of all unmanned systems types in the future. SAE-4 and PG-35 are starting to converge on 

identification of a set of Internet Protocol-based development schemas [Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) is an example] and open-source software development and certification tool 

sets that promise to blur the current distinction between the two standards. This work is 

documented in a Navy technical report, “Standardization of Unmanned Systems Technical 

Standards,” from Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, published in July 2007. 

 

13 Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 336M-2001, Television-Data Encoding Protocol 

Using Key-Length Value, 28 March 2001, http://www.smpte.org or http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/so/society_of_

motion_picture_and_television_engineers.htm. 14 International Standard IEC 62261-2, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005, 

pg. 6. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 3 Interoperability and Standards 

Page 18 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 19 

Chapter 4. COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

4.1. Why Unmanned Systems? 

The familiar saying that unmanned systems are better suited for “dull, dirty, or dangerous” 

missions rather than manned systems presupposes that man is the limiting factor in performing 

certain warfighting missions. Although most missions can be dull or dangerous at times, humans 

continue to execute them, whether as a matter of tradition or as a substitute for technology 

inadequacies. 

3⁄4 The Dull. Air warfare’s long-duration sorties represent one of the most pronounced 

examples of “dull” mission roles. The longest Operation Enduring Freedom B-2 sortie was 

just over 44 hours, and the longest Operation Iraqi Freedom B-2 sortie was 39 hours. Fatigue 

management of the two-person crew is a serious concern of unit commanders during longduration sorties. Contrast this relatively short-term imposition on crew endurance with the 

nearly continuous string of nearly day-long MQ-1 missions over Afghanistan and Iraq that 

have been flown by stateside crews rotating through four-hour duty cycle for over four years. 

3⁄4 The Dirty. The Air Force and Navy used unmanned B-17s and F6Fs, respectively, from 

1946 to 1948 to fly into nuclear clouds within minutes after bomb detonation to collect 

radioactive samples, clearly a dirty mission. Unmanned surface drone boats, early USVs, 

were also sent into the blast zone during Operation Crossroads to obtain early samples of 

radioactive water after each of the nuclear blasts. In 1948, the Air Force decided the risk to 

aircrews was “manageable” and replaced the unmanned aircraft with manned F-84s whose 

pilots wore 60-pound lead suits. Some of these pilots subsequently died due to being trapped 

by their lead suits after crashing or to long-term radiation effects. 

3⁄4 The Dangerous. EOD is a prime example of dangerous missions. Coalition forces in Iraq 

have neutralized over 11,100 IEDs since 2003. Ground robots have been used in a large 

percentage of these instances. The number of UGVs deployed in Iraq in the EOD role has 

increased from 162 in 2004 to 1600 in 2005 to over 4000 in 2006. 

In the above three roles, the attributes that make the use of unmanned systems preferable to 

manned platforms include the following: 

3⁄4 For the dull, allows the ability to give operators normal mission cycles and crew rest. 

3⁄4 For the dirty, increases the probability of a successful mission and minimizes human 

exposure. 

3⁄4 For the dangerous, lowers the political and human cost if the mission is lost. 

Lower downside risk and higher confidence in mission success are two strong motivators for 

continued expansion of unmanned systems across a broad spectrum of warfighting and 

peacetime missions. 

4.2. Capability Requirements 

Unmanned systems provide additional advantages and contributions beyond replacing humans in 

dull, dirty, and dangerous roles. For example, higher survivability, increased endurance, and the 

achievement of higher G-forces, as well as smaller sizes and thus signatures, in UASs are all 

made possible by removing the human from the aircraft. As another example, Sea Power 21
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 20 

specifies the use of unmanned systems as force multipliers and risk reduction agents for the 

Navy of the future: indeed 20 percent of the Navy’s 2020 surface fleet will be littoral combat 

ships (LCSs). LCSs are the first ship class fielded with a significant portion of its warfighting 

capability tied to reconfigurable “mission modules,” many of which are made up of unmanned 

systems serving as “force multipliers” that provide critical standoff. UMSs extend the reach of 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and other mission monitoring capabilities 

into denied areas and into waters too shallow or otherwise inaccessible for conventional 

platforms. Similarly, the JGRE sees UGVs as proving to be essential force multipliers in today’s 

operations, particularly in the area of IED defeat, and promising to provide advanced warfighting 

capabilities and reduce risk levels to warfighters. 

4.2.1. User Priorities Across COCOMs and Military Departments 

Each COCOM annually submits an integrated priorities list (IPL) of shortfalls in that theater’s 

warfighting capabilities. IPLs are the seminal source of joint requirements from U.S. warfighters 

and possess three essential attributes as requirements sources. They are “direct from the field” in 

pedigree, joint in perspective, and reexamined annually. Therefore, their requirements remain 

both current and auditable over the years. 

The COCOMs submitted 112 capability gaps in their FY2008–13 IPLs. These 112 capability 

gaps when combined with Military Department-identified gaps, CONPLAN 7500, and other 

lessons learned in the GWOT resulted in a total of 526 gaps. These 526 gaps were synthesized 

into 99 prioritized capability gaps. Of the 99 synthesized gaps, 17 are capabilities that are 

currently, or could potentially be, addressed by unmanned systems, including 2 of the top 10. In 

addition, 8 of the 9 COCOMs submitted gaps that could be addressed by unmanned systems. 

This summary demonstrates the growing role of unmanned systems in meeting critical 

warfighting capabilities. 

In the summer of 2006, OSD, through the Joint Staff, requested COCOM and Military 

Department input to prioritize DoD’s unmanned mission needs. Each COCOM and Military 

Department was afforded an opportunity to rank predetermined mission areas across various 

types and classes of unmanned systems. The priority lists below represent a best fit of the data 

received, with all inputs receiving equal weight. Future versions of this Unmanned Systems 

Roadmap will more succinctly define and categorize mission areas to enable a broader definition 

and standardization of terms. Prior to publication of the 2009 update to this Roadmap, a standard 

set of mission areas and unmanned systems classes will be developed. This standardization will 

help facilitate increased joint interoperability and understanding of mission needs that can be 

filled by unmanned systems. Mission area definitions can be found in Appendix E. 

4.2.2. UASs Priorities 

Table 4.1 represents the COCOM and Military Department needs for UASs prioritized by the 

following four classes of aircraft, which were defined to differentiate the various capability needs 

of the COCOMs: 

3⁄4 Small. Gross takeoff weight (GTOW) less than 55 pounds. 

3⁄4 Tactical. GTOW between 55 and 1320 pounds. 

3⁄4 Theater. GTOW greater than 1320 pounds. 

3⁄4 Combat. An aircraft designed from inception as a strike platform with internal bomb bays 

or external weapons pylons, a high level of survivability, and a GTOW greater than 

1320 pounds. An example is the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 21 

Table 4.1 COCOM and Military Department UAS Needs Prioritized By Aircraft Class 

 Mission Area Small Tactical Theater Combat 

Reconnaissance 1 1 1 1 

Precision Target Location and Designation 2 2 2 2 

Signals Intelligence 7 3 3 4 

Battle Management 3 4 5 6 

Communications/Data Relay 8 6 4 7 

CBRNE Reconnaissance 5 5 9 8 

Combat Search and Rescue 4 7 8 9 

Weaponization/Strike 16 8 7 3 

Electronic Warfare 12 11 6 5 

Mine Detection/Countermeasures 6 9 12 11 

Counter CCD 10 10 11 12 

Information Warfare 13 12 13 10 

Digital Mapping 15 14 10 14 

Covert Sensor Insertion 11 15 15 13 

Decoy/Pathfinder 9 13 18 16 

SOF Team Resupply 14 16 14 15 

GPS Pseudolite 18 17 17 17 

Littoral Undersea Warfare 17 18 16 18 

4.2.3. UGV Priorities 

Table 4.2 represents the COCOM and Military Department needs for UGVs prioritized across 

the following three echelons: company, brigade combat teams (BCTs), and unit of action or 

division. 

Table 4.2 COCOM and Military Department UGV Needs Prioritized By Echelon 

Mission Area Company BCTs Division 

Reconnaissance 1 1 1 

Mine Detection/Countermeasures 2 2 2 

Precision Target Location and Designation 3 3 5 

CBRNE Reconnaissance 6 4 3 

Weaponization/Strike 4 6 6 

Battle Management 8 5 4 

Communications/Data Relay 5 7 7 

Signals Intelligence 7 8 8 

Covert Sensor Insertion 9 9 10 

Littoral Warfare 13 10 9 

Counter CCD 10 11 11 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 22 

4.2.4. UMS Priorities 

Table 4.3 represents the COCOM and Military Department needs for UMSs prioritized across 

the following four classes, as defined in the UUV Master Plan. At the time of the request for 

input, USV classes had not been defined; however, USV mission areas and relative sizes were 

considered in the generation of these priorities. 

3⁄4 Man-portable. From approximately 25 to 100 pounds displacement. 

3⁄4 Lightweight. Nominally 12.75 inches in diameter with displacement of about 500 pounds. 

3⁄4 Heavyweight. 21 inches in diameter with displacement of about 3000 pounds. This class 

includes submarine-compatible vehicles. 

3⁄4 Large. Approximately 10 long-tons displacement and compatible with using both surface 

ships and submarines. 

Table 4.3 COCOM and Military Department UUV/USV Needs Prioritized By Class 

 Mission Area Manportable 

Lightweight Heavyweight Large 

ISR 1 1 1 1 

Inspection/Identification 2 2 2 2 

MCM 3 3 3 3 

Payload Delivery 8 7 4 7 

CBRNE Reconnaissance 4 5 8 12 

Covert Sensor Insertion 5 4 10 11 

Littoral Surface Warfare 12 9 5 5 

SOF Resupply 6 10 9 6 

Strike 14 8 7 8 

CN3 7 6 12 13 

Open Ocean ASW 13 17 6 4 

Information Operations 11 11 13 10 

Time Critical Strike 15 13 11 9 

Digital Mapping 9 12 15 14 

Oceanography 10 16 16 15 

Decoy/Pathfinder 16 15 14 17 

Bottom Topography 17 14 17 16 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 23 

4.2.5. DoD Priorities 

Comparing all the COCOM and Military Department inputs across the three domains for the 

various classes of unmanned systems revealed common themes. The priorities summarized in 

4.2.5.1 through 4.2.5.4 represent the Department’s priorities for how unmanned systems can fill 

gaps or improve capability. These priorities are not intended to focus all of our efforts on the top 

two or three mission areas, relegating lower priority items to manned or existing systems. With 

this unmanned coordination effort, the Department does risk stifling the advancement of “out-ofthe-box” solutions. Important work is being accomplished across the entire spectrum of mission 

areas and should continue. In fact, there are likely missions and unmanned solutions that will 

emerge in the coming years that do not exist today. However, the following priorities represent 

DoD’s most pressing needs as identified by a survey sent to the COCOMs and Military 

Departments and should be considered for future unmanned research and procurement. 

4.2.5.1. Reconnaissance 

All three domains, across all classes of unmanned systems, listed some form of reconnaissance 

(electronic and visual) as the number one priority. Information is the key enabler to today’s joint 

warfighter. Persistent surveillance was emphasized in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) and epitomizes the dull mission. Being able to surveil hostile areas while maintaining a 

degree of covertness is highly desirable. The reconnaissance mission that is currently being 

conducted by unmanned systems needs increased standardization and interoperability to gain 

capability and economic efficiencies across the classes and domains. Satellites, manned aircraft 

and submarines, and unattended sensors all have limitations that can be addressed by unmanned 

systems. Certain efficiencies can be realized when unmanned systems operate together to 

improve capability with lower costs. 

4.2.5.2. Target Identification, and Designation 

Finding, fixing, and tagging potential targets is a clear fit for unmanned systems. The ability to 

operate in high-threat environments without putting warfighters at risk is a significant advantage 

when compared to current manned systems. UUVs are already at work in conducting 

underwater hull and pier inspections, and ground target designation by UASs can significantly 

reduce the dangers encountered by current ground forces. 

4.2.5.3. Counter Mine Warfare 

The quintessential dangerous mission, countermine warfare may be the mission area most 

suitable for unmanned systems. A significant amount of effort is already being expended to 

improve the warfighter’s ability to find, tag, and destroy both land and sea mines. The work that 

ground robots are doing in Iraq to defeat IEDs is saving countless lives. Sea mines represent one 

of the cheapest and most effective deterrents to unobstructed use of the seas by the fleet and 

commercial vessels alike. 

4.2.5.4. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) Reconnaissance 

The ultimate dirty mission, CBRNE reconnaissance, may be the single most important element 

of the joint mission to protect the homeland. The thought of a successful chemical or biological 

attack on U.S. shores or deployed forces is unfathomable and could have a significant impact on 

the U.S. military, economy, and foreign policy. The ability to find and destroy chemical and 

biological agents and to survey the extent of affected areas is a crucial effort. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 4 COCOM Mission and Capability Needs 

Page 24 

4.3. Existing Joint Capabilities Being Filled by Unmanned Systems 

Unmanned systems are performing many dull, dangerous, and dirty jobs today. Reviews of 

existing and draft capability documents reveal a wide range of requirements and capabilities 

being filled or developed. Parameters to consider include the following: 

3⁄4 Typical warfighting specifications (endurance, payload capability, detection avoidance, 

operational radius/area coverage, and operating parameters such as depth, altitude, and 

speed), 

3⁄4 Material requirements (size, weight, reliability, and availability), 

3⁄4 Interoperability and open architecture, and 

3⁄4 Requirements somewhat unique to unmanned systems (level of autonomy, obstacle 

avoidance, and fail-safe systems). 

The ability of unmanned systems to meet key warfighter needs is growing every day. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 25 

Chapter 5. Organizational Efforts 

There are currently hundreds of efforts underway within DoD, academia, and private industry to 

advance unmanned systems development across the spectrum of military and nonmilitary 

operations. Until recently, the majority of these efforts have been undertaken within a narrow 

scope of a single platform type, Military Department, or technology. This chapter summarizes 

and provides links to the major efforts underway specifically related to the advancement of DoDrelated unmanned systems. Through education and possible consolidation of the various 

ongoing activities, economies of effort and funding may be possible. 

5.1. Department of Defense (DoD) 

5.1.1. Studies 

5.1.1.1. 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 

The 2005 QDR (published in February 2006) established the following department goals for 

unmanned systems: 

3⁄4 Investing in new equipment, technology, and platforms for the forces, including advanced 

combat capabilities such as unmanned vehicles. 

3⁄4 Strengthening forces to defeat terrorist networks, including establishing an UAS squadron 

under Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to provide organic capabilities to locate and 

target enemy capabilities in denied or contested areas. 

3⁄4 Increasing procurement of UASs to increase persistent surveillance to nearly double today’s 

capacity. 

3⁄4 Expanding maritime aviation to include unmanned aircraft for both surveillance and strike. 

3⁄4 Optimizing Air Force reserve component personnel for new missions that can be performed 

from the United States, including UAS operations. 

3⁄4 Restructuring the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program and developing 

an unmanned longer range, carrier-based aircraft capable of being air-refueled to provide 

greater standoff capability, to expand payload and launch options, and to increase naval reach 

and persistence. 

3⁄4 Increasing investment in UASs to provide more flexible capabilities to identify and track 

moving targets in denied areas. 

5.1.1.2. Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems (JUAS) Standards Study 

The JUAS Standards Study evaluated the adoption of standards (related to data link and sensor 

data flow) by a representative set of UASs and assessed the effectiveness of the standards in 

ensuring common and interoperable systems capable of efficient and effective dissemination of 

UAS data. The study team examined DoD regulations, directives, and instructions as well as 

Military Department guidelines and program documentation. The study team met with military 

department officials, including UAS program managers and contractors, to discuss the current 

status and future plans for their UAS platforms. 

The recommendations presented in this study put greater emphasis on the more immediate 

actions that can be taken by the joint UAS community to achieve interoperability through 

currently accepted and proven standards and processes. The recommendations also include the 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 26 

necessary first steps to posture the joint UAS community to take advantage of early joint UAS 

information or data flow definition and requirements to meet the evolving Global Information 

Grid (GIG) and network-centric operational warfare environment. Coupled with a lack of 

proactive, enforceable measures, a gap involving joint capabilities stakeholder definition, 

application, and oversight exists in recent UAS acquisitions. Key areas of concern, discussed in 

this study, involve standards definition, acceptance, and implementation for the greater good of 

joint interoperability. Standards determination and implementation, when well informed with 

effective Government stakeholder oversight and proactive measures, lead to valid results. 

Properly enforced, the standards discussed within the study can strengthen UAS developed and 

integrated subsystems, systems, and systems of systems for greater interoperability. A balanced, 

well-governed joint process is capable of producing greater benefits for the Joint Forces. 

5.1.1.3. Unmanned Air Systems Requirements Study 

The goal of the Unmanned Air Systems Requirements Study is to update manned and unmanned 

ISR requirements, which drive force structure for high-altitude (Global Hawk and U-2) and 

medium-altitude (Predator, Reaper, Sky Warrior) ISR platforms. This update is needed because 

the last high-altitude ISR requirements were defined in the 2001 Joint Airborne Reconnaissance 

Analysis, and, to date, a comprehensive requirements analysis for full motion video systems has 

not been accomplished. This effort will also evaluate operator/pilot skill sets and the need for 

any adjustments in training equipage. 

5.1.1.4. Office of Naval Research (ONR) Roles of Unmanned Vehicles 

Directed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, a 

2002 study on the roles of unmanned vehicles assessed potential concepts of operations and 

employment across all naval missions with respect to unmanned vehicles. The study panel 

examined fleet needs, requirements, and desired capabilities and then recommended which 

concepts were considered to have the greatest potential to improve warfighting capabilities and 

effectiveness while reducing manpower and operating costs. The study results are available at 

www.onr.navy.mil/nrac/docs/2003%5Fes%5Frole%5Funmanned%5Fvehicle.pdf. 

Additionally, in 2005, the ONR Future Naval Capability (FNC) program was restructured to 

align with the pillars of the Navy’s vision for the future, Sea Power 21, and to focus on providing 

enabling capabilities to close warfighting gaps. The FNC program provides the best technology 

solutions to stated OPNAV requirements by bundling discrete but interrelated science and 

technology products that deliver a distinctly measurable improvement within a five-year time 

frame. A three-star Navy and Marine Corps Board of Directors, the technical oversight group, 

approves the FNC recommendations based on their contribution to closing a warfighting 

capability gap, rather than on individual products. Thirty-five ongoing enabling capabilities are 

dedicated to the FNC. For more details on FNC program studies, visit www.onr.navy.mil. 

5.1.1.5. Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise (JGRE) Studies 

As UGVs have proliferated on the battlefield, there have been multiple recommendations for 

developing a common controller for these systems. The concepts for a common controller range 

from a single controller to control multiple platforms, to a single controller configuration to 

control all types of ground robotics, to a single controller configuration for all types of unmanned 

systems. The JGRE will study each of these concepts, identify their attributes and deficiencies, 

and provide a characterization of the associated trade space so that a better understanding of the 

best path forward for addressing common control can be achieved. The study is not intended to 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 27 

recommend a solution or even establish requirements, but will serve as a good definition of the 

implications associated with each of the options for common control of unmanned systems. The 

study is expected to be completed by end of FY2007. 

In another study, the Unmanned Systems Safety Precepts Policy Study, safety precepts 

developed by the Unmanned Systems Safety Workshops were mapped to existing DoD policy to 

determine whether the safety precepts were already addressed as policy or needed to be 

instantiated in policy as a means of providing needed guidance for achieving safety certifications 

for unmanned systems. The study identified which policy already addressed each precept and/or 

gave recommendations for how to incorporate the precept into the policy so that DoD has a 

comprehensive set of policy guidance that enables consistent, robust safety certification for 

unmanned systems. 

5.1.2. Working Groups and Organizations 

5.1.2.1. Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise 

To accomplish the JGRE mission as defined by Congress and OUSD(AT&L), the organization 

and functions were revised in FY2006 to better meet future warfighting needs. The JGRE is 

supported by organizational bodies composed of Military Department, OSD, and Joint Staff 

representation. These bodies provide a responsive management structure consisting of a flaglevel Senior Steering Group (SSG), a JGR Council at the 06 level, and a JGR TAB. 

The SSG advises on funding priorities and allocations and provides senior-level guidance for 

shaping DoD ground robotics development while serving as a direct link to the warfighter 

community at the flag officer level. The SSG is chaired by the Deputy Director of Land Warfare 

and Munitions, Portfolio Systems Acquisition, OUSD(AT&L). The Council is chaired by the 

Enterprise Director of JGR and consists of Military Department representation from both the 

combat development and material development communities. The group’s membership will act 

as the ground proponents for an ongoing DoD UGV roadmapping effort and will function to 

refine the DoD strategy for advancing ground robotics to include addressing Program Objective 

Memorandum (POM) development for funding ground robotics acquisitions. At the technical 

level, JGR TAB is composed of Military Department members who will execute the JGRE 

technology priorities through their ground robotics technology development programs and 

activities. The TAB will provide membership for various working groups to assess and 

recommend proposed JGRE technology development and warfighter experimentation based on 

assessments of robotics technology maturity and criticality to satisfying warfighter capability 

needs as identified by the COCOMs and Joint Staff. 

5.1.2.2. Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) 

The TSWG was formed in April 1982 as part of the Interdepartmental Group on Terrorism, 

chaired by the Department of Justice. Today, the TSWG still performs its mission to conduct the 

national interagency research and development program for combating terrorism requirements as 

a stand-alone interagency working group. The TSWG has successfully transitioned capabilities 

to the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury; the intelligence 

community; the Transportation Security Agency; the public health Military Department; and 

many State and local law enforcement agencies. It is through the TSWG and its Improvised 

Device Defeat Subgroup that the JGRE coordinates its activities with these various agencies. 

Members of EOD organizations from the Army, Navy, Air Force, serve as members of this 

Subgroup. In addition, several developers under the JGRE [particularly the Air Force Research 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 28 

Laboratory (AFRL)] have provided technologies to satisfy specific TSWG requirements. In 

recent years, the JGRE has provided technical support to the development of the TSWG’s Next 

Generation EOD Robotic Vehicle (NGEODRV) program, which is using a common architecture 

based upon the JGRE-developed JAUS standard, and is transitioning resulting technology 

solutions to the JGRE and joint EOD communities. 

5.1.2.3. Unmanned Systems Capabilities Conference (USCC) 

Beginning in 2004, JGRE and TSWG have partnered to sponsor an annual USCC that serves as a 

forum to bring DoD, interagency, Federal, State, and local bomb squad users in direct contact 

with developers and industry representatives to share information on emerging capability needs, 

operational lessons learned, research and development (R&D) activities, and Government and 

commercial robotic solutions. TSWG has been a continuing JGRE partner for UGV 

development. TSWG identifies, prioritizes, and coordinates interagency and international R&D 

requirements for combating terrorism. The JGRE works primarily with the TSWG’s Improvised 

Device Defeat Subgroup to align and coordinate applicable JGRE Joint Staff and Military 

Department robotic development efforts and to foster rapid development of technologies and 

equipment to meet the high-priority needs of the broader combating terrorism community. 

5.1.2.4. Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) Working Group 

The JGRE initiated a standards-based approach through the adoption of JAUS. Since 1998, the 

JGRE has sponsored a JAUS/AS-4 Working Group that has, through the active participation of 

Government, academia, and industry, effectively created a joint standard robotics software 

architecture that will soon become an industry standard. The objective in pursuing the adoption 

of JAUS as the primary UGV product line enabler has been to promote efficient development 

across the Military Departments and to enable DoD-wide opportunities for interoperability 

(“plug and fight”), rapid technology insertion, and overall systems affordability at lower 

development costs. 

JAUS is the messaging architecture potentially supporting not only UGVs but also UUVs, USVs, 

and some UASs. One of the JGRE’s goals has been to sponsor the transition of JAUS toward 

becoming a commercial, international standard. To that end, the JGRE is partnering with the 

SAE’s Aerospace Council, which chartered an Unmanned Systems Committee in 2004 that 

remains active in transitioning JAUS into an aerospace standard and fostering activities to 

expand the architecture’s utility to users and developers. For more details on JAUS, visit 

www.jauswg.org. 

5.1.2.5. Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Material Review Board (JUAS MRB) 

The JUAS MRB’s mission was to provide a UAS forum to identify or resolve requirements and 

corresponding material issues regarding interoperability and commonality, to prioritize potential 

solutions, to assess the focus of current and future programs, and to seek strategies common to 

all military departments. Primary goals included the following: 

3⁄4 Facilitating the JCIDS process by coordinating with and making recommendations to the 

appropriate functional capability board(s), the Joint Capability Board, and the JROC; 

3⁄4 Improving commonality of payloads and GCSs; 

3⁄4 Improving interoperability through adoption of common standards; 

3⁄4 Improving data dissemination through adoption of a common communication architecture; 

and 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 29 

3⁄4 Providing a corporate body of knowledge composed of subject matter experts from all 

Military Departments and relevant defense agencies to facilitate the JCIDS process. 

The issues the MRB was working to resolve will be continued by the new UAS Task Force. 

5.1.2.6. Joint Unmanned Aircraft System Center of Excellence (JUAS COE) 

The JUAS COE provides support to the joint operators and the military departments by 

facilitating the development and integration of common UAS operating standards, capabilities, 

concepts, technologies, doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, and training. The JUAS COE 

leverages existing military department initiatives and activities to provide joint integrated 

solutions and improved interoperability. The stated goals of the JUAS COE are to 

3⁄4 Increase standardization among systems, 

3⁄4 Reduce duplication of effort, 

3⁄4 Focus new ideas, 

3⁄4 Address interoperability challenges, and 

3⁄4 Develop new and/or updated doctrine, TTP, and CONOPSs. 

The Joint UAS Concept of Operations was approved in March 2007. 

5.1.2.7. UAS Airspace Integration JIPT 

The UAS Airspace Integration JIPT was established to focus and align DoD resources toward the 

timely development of standards, processes, procedures, technical solutions, and policy 

recommendations to meet the near-, mid-, and long-term airspace access needs of the DoD UAS 

user community. The JIPT will integrate work activities with the FAA, civil SDOs, and Military 

Department-related airspace organizations such as Air Force Flight Standards Agency, 

Electronic Security Command/Global Air Traffic Operations, and the Army Aeronautical 

Services Agency to optimize resource allocation; influence standards, procedures, and policy 

adoption schedules; and promote convergence of technical and procedural solutions to ensure 

system interoperability. The JIPT will contribute to the development of the standards, 

procedures, policy, and enabling technology necessary to safely integrate unmanned aircraft 

operations with manned aircraft operations in nonsegregated airspace on a timeline that is in 

alignment with the acquisition schedules of major DoD UAS PORs and the allocated funding for 

this work. It will also facilitate near- and mid-term expansion of DoD UAS use of the NAS 

through a modified COA process to meet existing operational requirements. 

The focus of the JIPT is on gaining access to the NAS for DoD UASs; however, other Federal 

and State public-use UASs should also benefit greatly from this effort. A strong effort will be 

made to coordinate the alignment of resources and activities among internal DoD (at the Military 

Department, National Guard, and OSD levels) as well as interagency (DHS and FAA) activities. 

Such activities could include modeling and simulation (M&S), technology development, 

acquisition, demonstrations, and flight tests. 

5.1.2.8. Navy Unmanned Systems Executive Steering Group 

In April 2005, the Deputy CNO of Warfare Requirements and Programs established the Navy 

Unmanned Systems Executive Steering Group. A charter was developed to support CNO 

Guidance for 2005 to develop an unmanned vehicle strategy to move the naval services toward 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 30 

more joint integration and to accelerate introduction of unmanned vehicles into the fleet. The 

executive steering group members (OPNAV Staff) chair individual vehicle teams. 

5.1.2.9. Joint Government/Industry Unmanned Systems Safety Initiatives 

In 2005 and 2006, OUSD(AT&L), Systems and Software Engineering, sponsored several 

Unmanned Systems Safety Workshops. The purpose was to focus and unify the technical 

community on the safety needs for unmanned systems through three specific objectives: 

3⁄4 To understand the safety concerns, including legal issues, associated with the rapid 

development and use of a diverse family of unmanned systems both within, and external to, 

the DoD JGRE, 

3⁄4 To establish and agree upon a standardized set of safety precepts to address the safety 

concerns associated with the design, operation, and programmatic oversight of all unmanned 

systems, and 

3⁄4 To develop safety guidance, such as hazard controls and mitigators, for the design, 

development, and acquisition of unmanned systems. 

The last workshop, held in March 2006, resulted in the publication of the OSD Unmanned 

Systems Safety Guide for DoD Acquisition (http://www.acq.osd.mil/atptf/).

5.1.3. Laboratory Activities 

5.1.3.1. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) 

The AFRL conducts numerous projects related to unmanned systems. Mission areas relating to 

UAS include persistent ISR, global strike, urban ISR and strike, hunter/killer, directed energy, 

munitions, and electronic attack. Some capabilities under development include multiple UAS 

flight management, UAS simulator training methods, sensor packages and target recognition, 

propulsion and power, autonomous guidance and navigation, adaptive control, cooperative 

control, safe airspace and airbase operations, efficient aerodynamics, affordable structures, 

operator and supervisor interfaces, data links, aerial refueling, communications, networking, and 

cooperative electronic attack to support battlespace access and survivability of friendly assets. 

There are also a variety of materials and electronic device and component efforts addressing 

reduction of cost, size, weight, and power (C-SWAP) of UAS sensor payloads. To address the 

various efforts, AFRL identifies Future Long-Term Challenges (FLTC) and forms 

multidirectorate Strategic Technology Teams (STTs) to pursue and capture fundamental research 

areas with high potential return on investment. 

In the area of UAS operator interfaces, research areas include the use of synthetic vision overlays 

to augment real-world video imagery, speech-recognition control, tactile alert cues, levels-ofautomation research, intuitive operator interactions with the GIG, dynamic mission replanning 

enhancements, transition aids for multi-UAV task switching, and tools to facilitate the 

simultaneous inspection of multiple streams of video imagery. The overall goals of this research 

are improved operator situation awareness, increased mission effectiveness, and a migration 

toward human supervisory control of multiple (possibly heterogeneous) UASs, allowing the ratio 

of operators/vehicles to decrease dramatically. AFRL works closely with the Air Combat 

Command (ACC), Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), and industry to define capability 

requirements for the next generation of tactical UASs. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 31 

Additionally, through its Robotics Research Group (AFRL/MLQF) at Tyndall Air Force Base, 

Florida, the AFRL conducts UGV research and development through the Robotics for Agile 

Combat Support (RACS) program. The primary focus of RACS is on vehicle mobility, speed, 

and control, as well as multivehicle operations and marsupial control in conformance with the 

evolving JAUS/SAE Committee AS-4 standard. Upon program completion, mature technologies 

are to be transitioned to designated fielding project offices within the Air Force or DoD. 

These efforts are further described at www.afrl.af.mil. 

5.1.3.2. Office of Naval Research (ONR)/Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) 

ONR and its primary organization, NRL, participate in a wide array of unmanned system 

projects, spanning all domains. Past and current projects funded by ONR, pictured in Figure 5.1, 

are REMUS UUV, SEAFOX USV, Coyote advanced ceramic UAS, and the RoboLobster 

amphibious robot. 

Figure 5.1 ONR Unmanned System Efforts 

Additional information concerning ONR’s unmanned efforts can be found at www.onr.navy.mil

and www.nrl.navy.mil. 

5.1.3.3. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) 

ARL maintains a balanced portfolio of research activities that support the continuous 

development of technology for future, more capable unmanned systems, enabled through 

advancements in intelligent control, machine perception, human-machine interaction, mechanics, 

and propulsion. This research crosses the boundaries of land, sea, and air and addresses a wide 

variety of needs for military unmanned systems, ranging in size from larger FCS vehicles to 

micro-scale soldier-carried robotic platforms. 

ARL’s research activities include basic and applied research conducted by the Robotics 

Collaborative Technology Alliance (CTA), a consortium of academic and industrial partners 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 32 

collaborating with ARL and focusing on perception, intelligent control architectures, and humanrobot interface (HRI) technologies (see Figure 5.2). The current program is scheduled to 

conclude at the end of FY2009. It has developed and transitioned technology, notably 

technology underpinning the primary autonomous mobility sensor for FCS UGVs, perception 

and planning algorithms, and human-machine interface technology to the Army’s FCS and 

Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response System (MDARS) as well as to other Army and 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (and more recently Navy) science and 

technology programs for UGVs, UASs, and UMSs. 

Figure 5.2 Example ARL Unmanned System Efforts 

Additional applied research tasks are part of the Near Autonomous Unmanned Systems (NAUS) 

Army Technology Objective (ATO) and the Robotics Collaboration ATO, which are sponsored 

by the Research, Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM). The NAUS ATO is a 

joint undertaking of three RDECOM organizations: ARL, Tank-Automotive Research, 

Development & Engineering Center (TARDEC), and Armaments Research, Development, and 

Engineering Center (ARDEC). This ATO will develop, integrate, and demonstrate risk 

mitigation technologies for FCS. The ARL portion of this effort focuses on applied research to 

develop advanced perception, planning and control, and HRI technology. The Robotics 

Collaboration ATO is also a joint undertaking of three RDECOM organizations: TARDEC, 

AMRDEC, and ARL. This ATO will develop advanced tools and technologies that reduce the 

requirement for soldier control and accelerate the fielding of soldier-robot teams. ARL research 

for HRI focuses on soldier-robot teaming, scalability requirements for robotic interfaces, and 

adaptive automation. The advances in the technology areas pursued by the Robotics CTA and 

the anticipated results from research associated with the NAUS and Robotics Collaboration 

ATOs are having a direct impact on FCS and UGV development for the modular force and will 

ultimately enable the FCS to achieve their objective performance goals. For example, these 

programs have already successfully transitioned sensor technology as well as perception and 

planning algorithms to the FCS Autonomous Navigation System (ANS) SDD program. 

ARL has significant in-house efforts in sensors, communications, and networking directly related 

to autonomous sensing for unmanned vehicles and unattended ground sensors. Specific areas of 

research include image processing for mobility and surveillance, nonimaging sensors (acoustic, 

magnetic, seismic, E-field) for threat localization, miniature radar sensors for moving target 

detection, and electronic devices aimed at lowering overall system weight and power needs for 

sensors and radios. Communications work includes highly efficient radios for low bandwidth, 

high reliability communications near the ground, and mobile ad hoc networking protocols that 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 33 

will enable high reliability command and control of autonomous assets. All of this work is 

aimed at providing key enabling technologies for energy-efficient, reliable operation. 

ARL also has a growing in-house research program focused on developing the underpinning 

science and enabling technologies for sensor integration, data fusion, and algorithms to improve 

the command and control for a heterogeneous mix of small robots. ARL in-house basic research 

for unmanned systems is greatly enhanced through CTAs. The Advanced Decision 

Architectures CTA has as its principal domain HRI, specifically, human-robot team 

communication and collaboration; mixed initiative system control; and displays, controls, and 

mobile software agents that compensate for any negative effects of information lag induced by 

bandwidth limitations. To help facilitate micro-sized unmanned systems research and 

experimental efforts, ARL has also formulated the Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology 

(MAST) CTA (see Figure 5.3). 

 

Figure 5.3 ARL MAST research 

ARL also conducts extramural basic research that provides underpinning science for future 

unmanned system capabilities through its Army Research Office (ARO). This includes 

Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) programs such as Language for 

Intelligent Machines (LIMES) and Micro Hovering Air Vehicles. 

More information about the above described programs and others can be found at 

www.arl.army.mil. 

5.1.3.4. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) Telemedicine 

and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) 

The Army is the executive agent for medical research, and USAMRMC is the Army’s execution 

command. TATRC is the USAMRMC’s center for medical information technologies research 

and development in areas such as telemedicine, medical informatics, and robotics. Based on user 

guidance and documented capability gaps from the Army’s Medical Combat Developer and in 

collaboration with DARPA, ARL, RDECOM, TARDEC, National Center for Defense Robotics 

(NCDR), JGRE, and Robotic Systems Joint Program Office (RSJPO), TATRC executes a 

robotics program that includes Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business 

Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR), Congressionally-funded efforts, and core research projects 

in robotic surgery, robotic patient intervention and treatment, and unmanned ground and air 

systems for combat casualty extraction, evacuation, medical logistics, and force health 

protection. See Figure 5.4, Appendix A, and Appendix B. Additional information can be found 

at www.tatrc.org. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 34 

Figure 5.4 Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation TAGS-CX & BEAR 

5.1.3.5. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

DARPA is the central research and development organization for DoD. DARPA’s mission is to 

maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise 

from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that 

bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use. 

DARPA is working with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and SOCOM toward a 

vision of a strategic and tactical battlespace filled with networked manned and unmanned air, 

ground, and maritime systems and the technologies they need to navigate and fight. Unmanned 

systems provide autonomous and semi-autonomous capabilities that free warfighters from the 

dull, dirty, and dangerous missions that might now be better executed robotically and enable 

entirely new design concepts unlimited by the endurance and performance of human crews. The 

use of UAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq is the first step in demonstrating the transformational 

potential of such an approach. 

DARPA’s efforts have been focused in two areas. First, DARPA seeks to improve individual 

platforms so that they provide new or improved capabilities, such as unprecedented endurance or 

survivability. Second, DARPA is expanding the level of autonomy and robustness of robotic 

systems. Progress is measured in how well unmanned systems can handle increasingly complex 

missions in ever more complicated environments (see Figure 5.5). Autonomy and robustness are 

improved by networking manned and unmanned systems into a more tightly coupled combat 

system that will improve our knowledge of the battlespace, enhance our targeting speed and 

accuracy, increase survivability, and allow greater mission flexibility. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 35 

Figure 5.5 Unmanned Vehicles – The Increasing Challenge of Autonomy 

DARPA’s A160 Hummingbird program (see A.1.16) is developing an unmanned helicopter for 

ISR missions with long endurance (up to 20 hours). The A160 Hummingbird concept is being 

evaluated for surveillance and targeting, communications and data relay, crew recovery, resupply 

of forces in the field, and special operations missions in support of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 

and other needs. 

The Oblique Flying Wing program is demonstrating a transformational design concept for a new 

class of efficient supersonic aircraft. The oblique flying wing concept flies supersonically with 

one wing swept forward and the other swept backward. At low speeds, the wing changes to an 

unswept design for better subsonic efficiency. The oblique flying wing is known to have lower 

supersonic wave drag than conventionally designed symmetrically swept wings. In addition, 

when flying at low speeds, the unswept wing design has higher efficiency than swept wing 

designs. This combination of performance attributes will enable improved range, response time, 

fuel efficiency, and endurance for supersonic strike, ISR, and transport missions. The goal of 

the program is to prove out the stability and control technologies required to enable the oblique 

wing concept by flying an unmanned X-plane that will demonstrate an asymmetric, variablesweep, tailless, supersonic flying wing. 

The micro air vehicle (MAV) ACTD (see A.1.30) developed a backpackable, fully autonomous, 

vertically launched-and-landed ducted fan UAV capable of providing electro-optical or infrared 

hover-and-stare support to the dismounted soldier. The MAV air vehicle is small (less than 

14-inch duct outer diameter), flies autonomously, has an endurance of 55 minutes at sea level, 

and can operate at altitudes over 10,000 feet. These capabilities make it ideal for operations in 

the complex/urban terrain and extreme conditions typical of restricted military environments. 

Now part of the Army’s FCS program, the MAV ACTD program demonstrated important 

military capabilities through experimentation and flight tests. 

The Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle/PerceptOR Integration (UPI) program is increasing the 

capabilities of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) to navigate in mission-relevant, cross-country 

environments. The program uses two highly mobile 6.5 ton, 6×6 wheeled, skid-steered, hybrid 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 36 

electric Crusher UGVs (see B.21). Crusher is integrated with a state-of–the-art perception and 

sensor system. The UPI program is demonstrating how these platforms can perform reliably and 

autonomously in obstacle-rich terrain and is also developing tools to allow the vehicles to plan 

their path using terrain data. 

The DARPA Grand Challenge 2005, held in October 2005, accelerated the development of 

autonomous ground vehicles to replace manned military vehicles in dangerous missions. It 

demonstrated that autonomous ground vehicles can travel significant distances, such as from one 

city to the next, at militarily relevant speeds. The 132-mile Grand Challenge course consisted of 

rugged desert roads typical of the terrain found in operational environments, and vehicles could 

use only onboard sensors and navigation equipment to find and follow the route and avoid 

obstacles. Five teams completed the course, and four finished under the required 10-hour time 

limit, with Stanford University’s “Stanley” the winner at 6 hours, 53 minutes (see Figure 5.6). 

One team’s vehicle remained in autonomous mode overnight on the desert route and completed 

the route the next day without any human intervention other than to give the vehicle permission 

to move. 

Figure 5.6 The Winner of DARPA Grand Challenge 2005: 

Stanford University’s “Stanley” 

The next step is the Urban Challenge, which is designed to accelerate the development of 

autonomous ground vehicles capable of operating safely in traffic. The final event in November 

2007 will demonstrate whether autonomous vehicles can travel 60 miles in under 6 hours 

through urban traffic. 

5.1.3.6. Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) 

The MCWL, originally known as the Commandant’s Warfighting Laboratory, was established in 

1995. It is located at Quantico, Virginia, and is part of the Marine Corps Combat Development 

Command. The MCWL’s purpose is to improve current and future naval expeditionary warfare 

capabilities across the spectrum of conflict for current and future operating forces. More 

information can be found at www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil. 

5.1.3.7. National Center for Defense Robotics (NCDR) 

In FY2003, Congress funded the establishment of the NCDR, which supports joint robotics 

program (JRP) development. The NCDR is a resource organization that partners with several 

DoD robotics organizations. Its mission is to devise, fund, and manage projects that enable the 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 37 

development, evolution, adaptation, and integration of certain agile robotics-related technologies 

and solutions into defense-related unmanned systems, vehicles, devices, and other applications. 

The NCDR seeks to forge dynamic alliances, partnerships, and other collaborative relationships 

among universities, Government organizations, small agile robotic technology companies, and 

defense contractors. 

5.2. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

DHS and DoD’s Northern Command share responsibility for defending the United States against 

terrorist attacks. In addition, DHS has a number of law enforcement functions not shared with 

Northern Command. DHS identified unmanned aircraft as a high-interest enabler for its 

homeland security and law enforcement functions within months of its formation in November 

2002. In May 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security directed that a demonstration for 

evaluating UAS utility in border surveillance be conducted, and as a result, Operation Safeguard 

was started that fall. DHS’s Directorate for Science and Technology established an internal UAS 

working group in 2003 to explore roles and define requirements that UASs could potentially 

support throughout DHS. Its first study15 addressed the potential applicability of UASs to border 

security, Coast Guard missions, critical infrastructure security, and monitoring transportation of 

hazardous materials. 

Subsequently, the internal UAS working group examined the cost effectiveness of various sizes 

of UASs compared to the effectiveness of manned aircraft and ground sensor networks in 

selected DHS environments. In performing this analysis, 45 functional capabilities that DHS is 

required to perform were examined in the nine environments in which DHS operates; UASs were 

assessed to be potential contributors in ten of the 45 capabilities (see Table 5.1). 

Table 5.1 DHS Capability Requirements Applicable to UASs 

Functional Area Functional Capability 

for Unmanned Aircraft 

Visual Monitoring 

Nonvisual Monitoring 

Suspect/Item Geolocation 

Surveillance and Monitoring 

Communications Interception 

Communications and Information Management Tactical Situational Awareness 

Apprehension/Detection/Seizure/Removal Pursuit Management and Prevention 

Targeting and Intelligence Intelligence Support to Command 

Deterrence Visible Security Systems 

Specialized Enforcement Operations 

Officer Safety Use of Safety and Emergency Equipment 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), an agency organic to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

since March 2003, had been gaining experience with UASs since the 1990s through cooperative 

use of Navy and Marine Corps Pioneers and Army Hunters during their units’ deployments in 

support of Joint Task Force 6. These 2-week deployments occurred one or more times annually 

 

15 “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Applications to Homeland Security Missions,” March 2004. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 38 

to provide added night surveillance capability along the U.S. southern and northern borders. 

USBP officers were integrated into these operations, with an officer sitting in the UAS GCS 

during missions and directing fellow agents to activities found by the UAS sensors. In April 

1999, USBP sponsored an evaluation of four types of unmanned aircraft (fixed-wing, helicopter, 

hand-launched, and powered parafoil) near Laredo, Texas. The results of the 36 sorties flown 

convinced the USBP that small UASs did not fully meet their needs, although cooperation with 

the Pioneer deployments continued. Use of a medium-altitude endurance UAS (Hermes 450) 

during the 2004 Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI) proved more successful and led to 

follow-on use of a similar UAS (Hunter) to patrol the southern border at night. 

In addition to Operation Safeguard, DHS organizations have conducted a number of other 

demonstrations using UASs in different roles and environments (see Table 5.2) and building on 

previous experiences with UASs learned by DHS’ legacy organizations over the past decade. 

Collectively, these demonstrations have served to educate DHS on the strengths and limitations 

of unmanned aviation and support its decision to focus efforts on a medium- or high-altitude 

endurance UAS capable of supporting multiple DHS organizations across a variety of 

applications and environments. For this role, it selected the General Atomics Predator B in 

August 2005. 

Table 5.2 DHS-Sponsored Unmanned Aircraft Demonstrations 

Demonstration Location 

Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Used 

Sponsor 

(Support) Dates Sorties Flown 

Hours 

Flown 

Operation Safeguard Gila Bend, 

AZ 

Predator B ICE 

(Air Force) 

Oct–Nov 03 15 106 

Alaska Demo 1 King Salmon, 

AK 

Predator USCG 

(Navy) 

Nov 03 5 35 

Alaska Demo 2 King Salmon, 

AK 

Altair USCG 

(NASA) 

Aug 04 3 36 

Wallops Island, 

VA 

Aerosonde USCG 

(NASA) 

Nov–Dec 04 

ABCI Sierra Vista, 

AZ 

Hermes 450 CBP 

(Navy) 

Jun–Sep 04 65 590.1 

ABCI Follow-on Sierra Vista, 

AZ 

Hunter CBP 

(Army) 

Nov 04– 

Jan 05 

41 329.1 

Coastal Areas Borinquen, PR Aerosonde USCG Feb 05 

5.2.1. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

CBP took delivery of its first Predator B in September 2005 and began conducting border 

surveillance flights with it from Ft Huachuca, Arizona, the following month. Although these 

aircraft are currently flown and maintained by contractor personnel and remain within line-ofsight (LOS) of their GCS, CBP intends to transition the piloting function to Air and Marine 

Operations (AMO) law enforcement pilots and enable beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) missions by 

adding Ku-band satellite communications (SATCOM) links. With that capability, en route 

control for up to 12 simultaneous UAS orbits, CBP Air and Marine will centralize strategic 

command and control from the CBP AMO Center at March Air Reserve Base in Riverside, 

California. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 39 

CBP Air and Marine will determine the total number of UAS required to secure the borders 

through mission experience in their mission areas of responsibility, including the Southwest, 

Northern, Southeast, Coastal, and transit zone environments. CBP has successfully proven that 

UASs augment manned law enforcement aircraft and ground interdiction agents along the 

Southwest Border, but still needs to evaluate missions in other areas of responsibility. Within 

each geographic region, CBP Air and Marine envisions three tactical launch and recovery (L&R) 

centers with strategic Ku-band satellite command and control provided by the CBP AMO Center. 

Each UAS center supports a geographic region in a “hub and spoke” concept. CBP Air and 

Marine will assign sufficient aircraft to provide persistent and systematic border surveillance 

with the CBP AMO Center having constant coverage. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sponsored Operation Safeguard in 2003 in 

response to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s May 2003 direction to evaluate UASs for DHS 

applications. During the 14 days of the operation, an Air Force MQ-9 Predator B flew 15 

missions from Gila Bend, Arizona, and contributed to the capture of 22 illegal aliens, 3 vehicles, 

and 2300 pounds of marijuana. This record provided DHS with its initial experience with a 

medium-altitude (17,000 feet) endurance unmanned aircraft, and Predator B proved to be a 

complementary adjunct to AMO’s helicopters in detecting and apprehending criminals along the 

southern border. AMO transferred from ICE to CBP in October 2004. 

5.2.2. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

USCG acquisition plans for UASs were in place prior to the formation of DHS as part of its 

Deepwater recapitalization program. Deepwater calls for acquiring a ship-based vertical takeoff 

and landing (VTOL) UAV (VUAV) for its new National Security Cutters and leasing up to 

seven land-based Global Hawks in 2016. The USCG began conducting a series of experiments 

in 1999 that have involved small (30-pound Aerosonde) to large (7000-pound Altair) UASs 

operating from vessels and from land (see Table 5.2). These experiments have been helpful in 

defining concepts of operation for employing future UASs and their sensors in roles varying 

from port security to open ocean fisheries protection and in environments from the Caribbean to 

Alaska. 

5.3. Department of Transportation 

5.3.1. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

The FAA established a dedicated Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (AIR-160) in December 

2005 to serve as the organization’s focal point for unmanned aviation policies and standards. 

Together with FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, they evaluate and issue Certificates of 

Authorization (COAs) for flights by public (i.e., Government-operated) UASs. COAs allow a 

specific UAS to fly specific profiles in certain areas at certain times for up to a year. DoD uses 

COAs primarily when it needs to fly its UASs outside of special use airspace, such as during 

deployments or production deliveries. The FAA issued 54 COAs in 2005, over 100 in 2006, and 

expects to issue over 400 in 2010. For civil UAS flights, AIR-160 evaluates the airworthiness of 

the system and issues special airworthiness certificates (SACs) in the experimental category for 

the systems deemed adequately safe. This certificate process is also available for public UASs. 

Since issuing its first UAS SAC in 2005, the FAA has awarded a total of five SACs to three 

companies and anticipates issuing over 40 in 2010. To better map out its approach to integrating 

unmanned aviation into the NAS, AIR-160, with Lockheed Martin, is currently developing an 

unmanned aviation roadmap, which it expects to release in September 2007 at www.faa.gov/uas. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 40 

5.4. Department of the Interior 

5.4.1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

The USGS use of UASs made studying the eruption of Mount St. Helen’s easier than before. 

USGS geologists and officials from the U.S. Forest Service deployed the vehicles because they 

can operate above the extreme heat and toxic collection of gases and solids. Now, scientists are 

hoping the UASs can help them in other areas, including wildfire mapping and other resource 

management applications such as invasive species mapping. 

5.4.2. Minerals Management Service 

The Minerals Management Service conducted a joint industry project with the Navy to develop 

the technology for navigation, data sensing, storage, and telemetry for a free-swimming robot 

submersible programmed to inspect underwater pipelines and structures. 

Two existing testbed vehicles were used to study the feasibility of unmanned, untethered robots 

for underwater inspection missions. The University of New Hampshire testbed, EAVE-East, 

evaluated acoustic navigation and communications. The robot is an open-frame, clump-shaped 

vehicle able to maneuver in three dimensions. It has undergone in-water testing around and 

through a simulated offshore structure. The Naval Ocean Systems Center testbed, EAVE-West, 

is torpedo-shaped for high running speeds, such as pipeline following. It navigates by 

magnetometers and communicates using fiber optics telemetry. These testbeds can perform 

basic underwater tasks. Because of independent interest in EAVE-West technology, the Center 

has fabricated and assembled a similar testbed system in an enclosed hydro-dynamically fared 

vehicle. 

5.5. Department of Commerce 

5.5.1. National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) 

NOAA has used unmanned, or autonomous, underwater vehicles for some time and is also 

interested in routinely using UASs to explore and gather data in the atmosphere in the region 

between where satellite and ground-based observing systems operate. UAS-acquired data will 

supplement data gathered by current “suborbital” airborne platforms (aircraft, sounding rockets, 

airships, and balloons) and complement existing surface-based and space-based observing 

systems. 

Carrying a scientific payload developed by NOAA, NASA’s Altair UAS (from Dryden Flight 

Research Center in California) flew five demonstration missions over the Santa Barbara Channel 

between April and November 2005 (see Figure 5.7). These demonstration flights marked the 

first time NOAA had funded an UAS mission aimed at filling critical research and operational 

data gaps in several areas, including climate, weather and water, ecosystem monitoring and 

management, and coastal mapping. NOAA collaborated with NASA and industry to develop the 

mission. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 41 

Figure 5.7 Artist Depiction of NOAA/Altair UAS 

Over the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

A primary goal of this first demonstration was to evaluate UASs for future scientific and 

operational requirements related to NOAA’s oceanic and atmospheric research, climate research, 

marine sanctuary mapping and enforcement, nautical charting, and fisheries assessment and 

enforcement. Altair can carry an internal 660-pound payload to 52,000 feet and fly for over 

30 hours. It further demonstrated the capability to safely integrate into the NAS down to 

altitudes of 7000 feet. Its endurance, reliability, and payload capacity could provide the 

capability to improve mapping, charting, and other vital environmental forecasting in remote 

areas, such as the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and Alaska. In California, the aircraft’s 

capabilities could improve forecasts and warnings of natural disasters, such as winter flash floods 

and related fatal mudslides. The payload included the following sensors: 

3⁄4 Ocean color sensor to facilitate fisheries management through better assessment of 

ecosystem health, including improved forecasting and warnings of harmful algal blooms. 

3⁄4 Ozone sensor to help determine ultraviolet vulnerability. 

3⁄4 Gas chromatograph to help scientists estimate greenhouse gases potentially associated with 

climate change and global warming. 

3⁄4 Passive microwave vertical sounder to help determine when flash flood warnings must be 

issued. 

3⁄4 Digital camera system to facilitate shoreline mapping, habitat mapping, and ecosystem 

monitoring, including spill and aquatic disease tracking and assessing land-based discharges 

and marine mammal distribution and abundance. 

3⁄4 Electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor to provide nonintrusive maritime surveillance for 

fishery and marine sanctuary enforcement. Current aerial surveillance has a short survey 

range and is noisy, dangerous, infrequent, and costly. 

5.6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

NASA has a long history of sustained development of unmanned flight capabilities, as 

exemplified over the past decade by its Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology 

(ERAST) and Access 5 programs. ERAST evaluated a variety of automated S&A systems for 

use on future UASs as well as demonstrated novel propulsion systems and achieved record 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 5 Organizational Efforts 

Page 42 

altitudes for propeller-driven aircraft. Access 5 focused on creating the regulatory path forward 

for routine UAS access into the NAS. Today, NASA operates a small fleet of AAI Aerosonde 

mini-aircraft from its Wallops Island Flight Facility in Virginia on a lease-to-fly basis for 

researchers and a General Atomics Altair UAS from its Dryden Flight Research Center in 

California, which recently supported NOAA research payload flights.
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 43 

Chapter 6. Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Although this chapter is largely based on one study of national technology trends,16 the first such 

report prepared after 9/11, that study built on eight other studies of trends in U.S. technology and 

industry published within two years of it. The organizations conducting these studies were the 

Council on Competitiveness, National Intelligence Council, U.S. Commission on National 

Security, RAND, the Industrial Research Institute, and Battelle show a cross-section of 

Government, industry, and academia in their composition. There was a high degree of 

correlation among the forecast technology trends in each study. 

6.1. Technology Challenges 

The single most important near-term technical challenge facing unmanned systems is to develop 

an autonomous capability to assess and respond appropriately to near-field objects in their path 

of travel. For an aircraft, that near field could extend to many nautical miles all around it, 

whereas for a ground or sea vehicle, near field could mean the next few yards directly in front of 

it, or as much as 100 meters for “high speed ground vehicles.” This is the UAS community’s 

S&A requirement17 to provide an autonomous ability to avoid midair collisions in lieu of having 

a pilot on board. The situation is also critical for UGVs, whose inability to distinguish between a 

wall of grass or a wall of granite in order to decide whether to go through or around it can thwart 

or unnecessarily delay mission accomplishment. Whether in an air, ground, or sea 

implementation, the technology for detecting near-field objects and for maneuvering with respect 

to them is well in hand. However, significant technical challenges remain in developing 

assessment tools and logic for maneuver, including a UGV’s ability to rapidly and accurately 

assess detected stationary obstacles protruding above the ground, conducting pathway 

trafficability assessments, and performing continuous classification of obstacles, e.g., humans, 

which could impact mission and path planning. 

Securing command links to unmanned systems is an equally daunting challenge for all 

modalities of unmanned systems. Less than fully secure command links can result in the vehicle 

being delayed or diverted, destroyed, or even captured. 

UGVs and UMSs often depend on a combination of a camera and a teleoperated manipulator 

(arm and claw) to perform certain tasks, such as de-arming explosive devices or removing mines. 

Requiring a human in the loop generally necessitates having the operator in the local vicinity due 

to Line of Sight (LOS) constraints, and this close proximity potentially brings the human into the 

threat zone of which the robot was meant to keep him clear. Autonomous robotic manipulators, 

or smart arms, capable of conducting scalable grasp, twist, release, and other such functions 

independent of human command, are needed to increase the mission flexibility and effectiveness 

of UGVs and UMSs. Smart arm technology is being tested in space on the DARPA Orbital 

Express and subsequent Air Force missions. 

 

16 Future R&D Environments, National Academy Press, 2002, http://www.nap.edu. 1

7 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.113. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 44 

6.2. Emerging, Applicable Technologies 

In its 2002 report for NIST, the National Research Council examined current trends and probable 

developments in emergent technologies. The report contains two sections dedicated to 

unmanned systems, “Trend 5: The Maturation of Autonomous Machines” (Appendix G) and 

“Robot Engineering” (Appendix H), and numerous sections on the varied technologies (power, 

computing, materials, sensing) required to enable unmanned systems. The report stresses the 

growing interplay between the traditional robotics disciplines (engineering, computer science) 

and biological ones, as expanded in the following paragraph from its Appendix H: 

“Today, robot building depends almost as much on biologists and neuroscientists as it 

does on engineers and computer scientists. Robot builders seek insights from the 

animal kingdom in order to develop machines with the same coordinated control, 

locomotion, and balance as insects and mammals. The purpose is not to create a robot 

that looks like a dog...but to build one—for battlefield use or planet-surface 

exploration, say—that can walk, creep, run, leap, wheel about, and roll over with the 

same fluid ease as a canine. To do this requires not simply electrical wiring and 

computer logic, but also a deep understanding of insect and mammalian mobility, which 

in turn requires the inputs of zoologists, entomologists, and neurophysiologists...For 

now, bioinspired robots are mostly creatures of the laboratory. However, one would 

expect continued development and application of these robots throughout this decade 

and a backflow of insights to biologists...as they observe the development of 

bioinspired machines.” 

Although the foregoing extract seems focused on UGVs, it can be made equally applicable to 

robotic aircraft or sea vehicles by replacing “dog” with “bird” (fly, hover, swoop, perch) or 

“porpoise” (swim, dive), respectively. The question it raises for DoD robotics technologists and 

Military Department laboratory directors is whether the biological disciplines are sufficiently 

represented within their ranks. 

The report examines technology development in terms of “push,” “contextual,” and “pull” 

factors. Push factors arise from the advance of technology itself; in other words, they are the 

results of the steady march and the occasional breakthroughs of research. Mapping the human 

genome is a recent example of push factors. Contextual factors are organizational, economic, 

legal, and regulatory issues that affect technology development. Quotas on foreign students and 

Federal policy on allowing them to participate in federally funded R&D are examples of 

contextual factors. Pull factors are social and cultural issues that shape which, how much, and 

how quickly technology is accepted into society. Internet use (fast, uncontested) and genetically 

engineered foods entering the food chain (slow, controversial) are two examples of pull factors. 

The push, contextual, and pull factors surrounding technologies for unmanned systems are 

discussed in 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5, respectively. 

6.3. Push Factors 

The NIST study focused on three specific fields of technology because the study’s authors 

judged it likely that most of the important technological advances over the next 10 years would 

come from within or at the intersection of these fields: biological science and engineering, 

materials science, and computer and information science. The report states, “Each is 

characterized by an extremely rapid rate of change of knowledge; has obvious and wide utility; 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 45 

and will benefit from advances in the others, so the potential for synergy among them is 

particularly great.” Unmanned systems are deeply dependent on advances in each of the three 

fields, as shown from the following selected summaries from the study: 

3⁄4 Transgenic biopolymers fall at the intersection of biological and materials sciences and offer 

the prospect of ultra-lightweight, ultra-strong, flexible, and low-observable skins (airframes, 

cowlings) for unmanned systems. As an example, the silk-producing gene of spiders has 

been spliced into the mammary gland gene of sheep, from whose subsequent milk the silk 

protein can be extracted. Breeding herds of such sheep enable spider silk, known for its light 

weight and high strength, to be produced on an industrial scale. The Army’s Natick 

Laboratory is investigating this same protein for use as an anti-nerve agent drug. 

3⁄4 In materials science, nanoparticles, which are single-element materials built on the order of a 

few hundred to a few atoms in size (1 to 100 nanometers), possess significantly different 

properties than larger size devices of the same material. One form of nanoparticles, carbon 

nanotubes, could provide mechanical devices with very high resonant frequencies for use in 

unmanned system communication links. Surface coatings of combinations of nanoparticles 

and electrically conducting polymers have been demonstrated that convert from transparent 

to opaque, change color, and heat or cool with an electrical command and offer an option for 

camouflaging unmanned vehicles. The thermoelectric performance of bismuth nanoparticles 

offers the potential for developing high-efficiency, solid-state energy-conversion devices that 

could significantly reduce their size and weight in unmanned systems. 

3⁄4 Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) offer the prospect of radically reducing the size of 

all modalities of unmanned systems. Fingernail-size turbines and pinhead-size actuators on 

future, miniature aircraft could make today’s MAV prototypes appear unnecessarily large 

and bulky. MEMS-enabled UGVs could be deposited like unnoticed insects. Their UMS 

counterparts could be released in an underwater cloud to attach themselves to any mines into 

which they drift. A major challenge with MEMS will be communicating with them. 

3⁄4 Proton exchange membrane fuel cells now offer power densities equivalent to internal 

combustion engines (1 horsepower per pound of engine weight) with the added advantages of 

quiet operation (low acoustic signature) and being mechanically less complex (lower 

maintenance cost). Fuel-cell-powered cars are now commercially available (Toyota) or 

about to be introduced (General Motors), yet only a handful of fuel-cell-powered aircraft 

have been flown experimentally. Current membrane materials are expensive and have 

thermal limitations that compromise operating efficiency. Materials research is focused on 

membranes that can conduct protons in the absence of water. 

3⁄4 Smart materials and their constructs (smart structures) combine the sensing, control, and 

actuation functions into one entity and allow synchronization with the changing environment 

and self repair of damage. For unmanned aircraft, the concept of a morphing wing, one that 

optimizes its camber based on flight regime, is a rudimentary form of smart structure being 

developed by DARPA. Operationally, such a wing would eliminate bulky actuators, 

jackscrews, and hydraulic pumps used in current aircraft control surfaces, with the resultant 

weight savings becoming available for additional payload or fuel (in other words, range 

and/or endurance). 

3⁄4 On the border of materials and computer sciences, magnetic nanoparticles may provide the 

next leap in magnetic storage devices, greatly expanding the memory capacities of the 

“brains” of unmanned systems. They have the potential to increase storage density to 

1000 gigabits per square inch using nanoparticles of 10 to 20 nanometers. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 46 

The dominant trend in computational technology remains Moore’s Law, the computer 

industry’s doubling of processor speed (via halving of transistor size) every 18 months or a 

100-fold increase per decade (see Figure 6.1). Storage density (memory) is increasing at an 

equal or even faster rate (see Figure 6.2). Both have been accompanied by declining costs, 

but the limits of ultraviolet lithography, key to fabricating silicon microprocessors, will be 

reached in the next 10 years (2015 to 2020). The third ingredient to computational power, 

software, at $200 per equivalent line of A-level code, remains the most costly component, 

and over 50 percent of software is for quality assurance. Successors to the silicon chip may 

be based on biological (“moletronics”), optical, or quantum computing, but the commercial 

appearance of any of these technologies is probably at least two decades away, perhaps 

sooner for some hybrid solutions. 

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2030

1012

109

106

103

1

10-3

10-6 ENIAC

IBM 1620

iBM 7090

IBM 360/65

Intel 4004

Intel 80286

Sun SS1

Pentium

Cray CS6400 Pentium 4

Speed (MIPS)

Cray Red Storm

Personal Computers

Mainframes

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2030

1012

109

106

103

1

10-3

10-6 ENIAC

IBM 1620

iBM 7090

IBM 360/65

Intel 4004

Intel 80286

Sun SS1

Pentium

Cray CS6400 Pentium 4

Speed (MIPS)

Cray Red Storm

Personal Computers

Mainframes

Figure 6.1 Trend in Processor Speed 

10-6 10-3 1 103 106 109 1012

1012

109

106

103

1

10-3

10-6

Speed (MIPS)

Audio Channel

Video Channel

Optical Fiber

1985 PC

Book CD Library of Congress

1995 PC

IBM Deep Blue

Lizard Mouse

Monkey Human

Memory (Megabytes)

Cray Red Storm

10-6 10-3 1 103 106 109 1012

1012

109

106

103

1

10-3

10-6

Speed (MIPS)

Audio Channel

Video Channel

Optical Fiber

1985 PC

Book CD Library of Congress

1995 PC

IBM Deep Blue

Lizard Mouse

Monkey Human

Memory (Megabytes)

Cray Red Storm

Figure 6.2 Relationship of Processor Speed and Memory 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 47 

In the context of unmanned system capabilities, this ever-increasing computational 

performance can bring improvements in integrating and interpreting data from sensors and in 

interacting with human operators. While speech recognition is advancing rapidly, speech 

understanding in natural conditions will not be achieved in the coming decade. Its 

appearance will hinge on a subset of natural language evolving into an accepted computer 

interface language. Visual recognition in natural conditions, as in automatic target 

recognition, will likewise be at least a decade away. The more “thinking” that can be 

completed onboard in real time, the less bandwidth to pipe the data off board for human 

processing will be required; in other words, future battlefields may have less spectrum 

congestion than the battlefields of today. Rules of engagement will have to evolve to “trust” 

the validity of a future unmanned system’s text report rather than its video. 

Interestingly, none of the above technologies is being driven primarily by military requirements. 

Although initiatives in these areas are being pursued at government laboratories, the driving 

industries include entertainment (computer speed and memory capacity), pharmaceutical 

(biopolymers), automotive (fuel cells), personal use (wireless communication), banking (data 

security), and other nonmilitary users. See Table 6.1. 

Table 6.1 Selected Enabling Technologies for Unmanned System Applications 

Applied Enabling Technologies 

Functions Bioengineering Materials Computational 

Aerostructure/Chasis/Hull Transgenetic biopolymers MEMS for boundary 

layer control 

Propulsion and Power Superconductor motor 

Fuel cells 

Control Morphing wing/fins Morphing wing/fins Voice understanding, 

adaptive guidance, 

navigation, and control 

Communication Nanoparticle-based 

wireless 

Greater onboard processing 

= reduced bandwidth 

Sensing Biohazard “labs on a chip” Automatic target recognition

6.4. Contextual Factors 

Contextual factors, such as funding sources, Government policies, and education, define the 

environment that supports technology R&D. Before 1980, the Federal Government (largely 

DoD) was the dominant funding source for new technology; in the 1980s, industry assumed the 

lead and now funds some 70 percent of U.S. R&D. Within the Government R&D spending, 

defense R&D funding was dominant until 1995; nondefense expenditures have held the lead 

since then, with health research, the most rapidly growing sector, accounting for half of this 

budget. The impact will be that defense unmanned technologies will increasingly become driven 

by commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology versus driven by defense-specific research. 

This trend will force the capabilities of defense unmanned technologies to conform with what 

becomes commercially available. 

For unmanned aviation, Federal regulations are a major contextual factor and not only for 

airspace access. First, spectrum availability is becoming increasingly unavailable or shared, 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 48 

whether in the Continental United States (CONUS) or in overseas theaters. Many UAS types, 

from Global Hawk to Scan Eagle, have lost at least one aircraft to frequency interference or 

misuse. UASs must compete for spectrum in this crowded market through its national (Federal 

Communication Commission) and international (World Telecommunication Organization) 

regulators. Second, studies mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency are impacting 

where and when UASs can operate. UASs must operate usually over desert and away from 

urban concentrations or other environmentally or culturally sensitive areas. Third, existing 

airspace regulations are unfocused and interpretable with regard to unmanned aviation, a 

situation which is recognized and being addressed by the FAA. 

6.5. Pull Factors 

Pull factors are market and societal influences affecting technology adoption. For defenserelated unmanned systems, the series of regional conflicts in which the United States has been 

engaged since the end of the Cold War has served to introduce and expand the capabilities of 

unmanned systems technology to warfighters. This conflict-driven demand has ensured the 

technology’s evolution and continued funding, with each new conflict reinforcing the interest in 

such systems. Global Hawk owes its appearance over Afghanistan to the performance of 

Predator over Bosnia and Kosovo, which in turn owes its start to the record established by 

Pioneer in the Persian Gulf War. CONUS use of unmanned systems includes crawling through 

collapsed buildings looking for 9/11 survivors, helping locate lost mountain climbers, and 

serving as robot astronauts on Mars. The attention such systems have received in the news 

media acts to increase public acceptance of these systems and to allay concerns over privacy 

issues raised in some quarters. Societal acceptance typically leads to market growth, which 

stimulates R&D that can lead to more capable, less costly unmanned systems for defense. 

6.6. Unmanned Technology Objectives 

Current unmanned systems capabilities must evolve into the future DoD acquisition and 

operational vision. Current support to the warfighter must be sustained while making the 

transition, but every effort must be made to accommodate unmanned systems technologies along 

with more traditional technologies as soon as possible. This section provides a summary of 

direction for future investments intended to produce common hardware and software to facilitate 

mechanisms across unmanned systems. A body of written DoD direction already exists with 

which the unmanned systems community must comply while designing, building, fielding, and 

sustaining such systems. In 6.6.1 through 6.6.17, the summary of direction to the Military 

Departments and to industry is intended to guide the unmanned systems community’s investment 

strategies. 

COCOMs’ warfighting missions and capability needs are the focus of the technology way ahead, 

as illustrated in Figure 1.2. This Unmanned Systems Roadmap emphasizes missions and 

capabilities in terms of their air/sea/land domains without regard to a specific Military 

Department. The vision for these systems is that, regardless of originating Military Department, 

they will quickly evolve to the point where various classes of unmanned systems operate 

together in a cooperative and collaborative manner to meet the joint warfighers’ needs. UASs 

will be teamed with UGVs over land and with UMSs over water in combined arms roles that will 

augment and extend manned capabilities. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 49 

Obstacle avoidance, threat avoidance, and mine search and neutralization are a few of the 

missions that automatic target recognition facilitates. All of the missions described for 

unmanned systems depend on the effective use of sensors, most particularly the MCM, ISR, and 

ASW capabilities. The sensor arena needs to concentrate on increasing area coverage rate 

(ACR), improving classification and identification capabilities, developing nontraditional 

tracking techniques, and developing CBRNE sensors. 

6.6.1. Autonomy 

The area of autonomy and control is a major research area for all unmanned systems, whether 

military, commercial, or academic in origin. It offers the benefit of minimizing manning and 

bandwidth requirements while extending the tactical range of operations beyond the LOS. A 

number of system mission support technologies must be advanced before we can achieve 

autonomous collaboration among multiple unmanned systems. For example, substantial research 

must still be undertaken in perception to enable small UASs working at low altitude, UGVs, and 

USVs to achieve forecast potential for working in three-dimensional terrain. Adaptability and 

learning from past experience are still at early stages of capability. Advances in these 

technologies for individual systems will go a long way toward enhancing the capabilities and 

utilization of unmanned systems collaboratively or in teamed applications with manned systems. 

Another aspect of autonomy is cooperative (or collaborative) coordination among multiple 

vehicles. This aspect is viewed as an important enabling capability for large-scale operations 

where object sensing, intervention, and surveillance are necessary and may occur simultaneously 

and in stride with other operations. While many current systems operate using radio frequency 

(RF) communication links to an operator’s control station that can be long range with encrypted 

high data rates, trade-offs exist, and performance limitations due to issues with communications 

link allocation during real-world operations are likely. The unmanned systems community must 

wean itself from the telecommunication bandwidth. Autonomy will certainly be required in 

order to accomplish this goal. 

6.6.2. Bandwidth Issues 

Many unmanned systems use COTS data link equipment that offers the developers reduced costs 

for the equipment and shorter development periods. Problems associated with using commercial 

RF for military applications include being designed within the U.S. authorized spectrum; in other 

words, they are given the lowest priority within the United States and its Possessions. As a 

result, use of these frequencies may be prohibited in some countries. The use of COTS 

equipment for proof of concept is acceptable on a temporary basis, but strong consideration must 

be given during system development to material solutions that truly take spectrum supportability 

into account. This effort includes considering equipment designed to operate in properly 

allocated bands before field testing and especially before entering formal development or before 

large numbers of systems are procured. Such replacement efforts need to be programmed into 

the transition plan from ACTDs into a normal acquisition program. 

6.6.3. Cognitive Processes 

Human cognitive process considerations are important for unmanned system development from 

two perspectives. First, unmanned systems are intended to be tools or assets that extend human 

perception and action capabilities. Therefore, the manner in which the unmanned-systemprovided information is made available to users must be consistent with their critical information 

requirements, mission tasks, and roles. The information must support human perception, 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 50 

understanding, reasoning, and decision making in mission environments. Second, there are 

human capabilities that can be captured in software algorithms or computational approaches that 

would be beneficial to host directly on an unmanned system. For example, the human ability to 

identify objects is highly robust across viewing angles, lighting conditions, etc., and is very 

efficient. Such a capability would be useful to unmanned systems, both in terms of added 

functionality and in a potential reduction in computer requirements. 

6.6.4. Common Control 

The effective operation of unmanned system capabilities envisioned by this integrated Roadmap 

will result in the simultaneous operation of many dissimilar unmanned systems. In order to 

minimize proliferation of unique hardware and software, manning and training requirements, and 

communications systems, a common control approach is necessary. Common control for all 

unmanned systems is the ultimate goal for many reasons: 

3⁄4 To allow ready transfer of control of an unmanned vehicle from one operator to another, 

3⁄4 To allow control of multiple types of vehicles from a single control station, 

3⁄4 To minimize training across host platforms, operators, and vehicle types due to the resulting 

standardization in controls across the unmanned systems community, and 

3⁄4 To minimize logistics requirements due to the resulting common hardware, spare parts, and 

maintenance practices across the unmanned systems community. 

6.6.5. Communications 

Communication is required between the vehicle and support platform for transmission of 

commands and data. Primary issues to be considered when evaluating a mode of communication 

for an unmanned systems task include available bandwidth, range between source and receiver, 

detectability, and the required network infrastructure. These issues are of particular concern for 

the ISR mission when communication is desired without exposing either the sender or receiver to 

possible hostile interception. An expansion of bandwidth capability is desired for the more 

stealthy methods, such as acoustic communications (ACOMMs) and low-probability-of-intercept 

RF communications. Communication challenges are also associated with multiple vehicles 

operating together. Reliable communication between vehicles working in a network must be 

established and proven. 

6.6.6. Cooperative Behavior 

Two of the key features of unmanned systems in the future will be interconnectivity and 

interoperability. An operational construct and architectural framework will be required that 

integrates warfighters, sensors, networks, command and control, platforms, and weapons into a 

networked, distributed combat force, scaleable across the spectrum of conflict from seabed to 

space and from sea to land. This construct is an inherently joint and coalition concept; it relies 

on and provides essential capabilities to the joint and coalition communities and other Military 

Departments and agencies. By developing cooperative behaviors, unmanned systems will ensure 

that data products are delivered to the proper operating systems and via established 

communication paths to allow the most effective use and dissemination of those data products to 

warfighters. 

Future unmanned systems will need to be optimized to perform collaboratively with both 

manned and unmanned team members to accomplish military missions and will require an 

increasingly complex exchange and fusion of data from individual systems to inform operator 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 51 

decision making processes in real time. With the introduction of unmanned systems to the force, 

the definition of team member has been expanded to include unmanned systems. There are two 

components to this effort: teaming between the unmanned systems and teaming between the 

human and the unmanned systems. Human-robot teams provide a unique challenge, that is, how 

to develop unmanned systems technologies to enable the human to predict, collaborate, and 

develop trust with the unmanned system. Additional considerations are the coordination 

between mounted and dismounted soldiers with respect to the exchange and hand-off of 

information from, and control over, unmanned assets from one operator to the other. 

6.6.7. Data Interfaces 

Information exchanges occur primarily between the unmanned system, its control station, and 

specially designed external interfaces, such as Air Traffic Control (ATC) and video feeds. 

Unmanned system products, after being processed, flow to external nodes from the control 

station servers through network connections. In its current form, the CDL communications 

system provides a closed circuit between the unmanned system and its control station to carry 

commands, status, and sensor products. As an edge device on the GIG, the control station then 

provides this information to the user community while keeping the unmanned system isolated 

from the GIG. CDL-equipped unmanned systems must transition from a closed circuit (or 

merely using communications services) to a network node (or actually providing 

communications services). 

The first step to achieving network-centricity involves network-enabling the interfaces. In other 

words, Internet Protocol-based network connections and routers between unmanned subsystems 

and the on-board data link must be created with corresponding network interfaces between the 

control station data link, control station subsystems, and the GIG. This changes the paradigm 

from a closed circuit to a network node. Functions and products of unmanned systems 

implemented as network nodes would be accessible to other authorized nodes on the GIG, not 

just to the control station. The unmanned system itself becomes an edge device on the GIG. 

The second step involves unmanned systems that can connect directly to more than one node on 

the GIG. During times when the demand on the data links is low, such as during cruise portions 

of the mission, unmanned systems capable of connecting to more than one node can act as 

network routers, passing Internet data packets between the multiple connected nodes. In this 

way, unmanned systems can contribute their unused bandwidth to the overall carrying capacity 

of the GIG. 

6.6.8. Dynamic Obstacle/Interference/Collision Avoidance (Including Humans) 

All unmanned systems except the smallest special purpose vehicles must have the ability to 

autonomously avoid obstacles. In addition to the simple avoidance of obstacles (which is not 

simple if both the “obstacle” and the vehicle are moving independently), we must consider 

perception elements impacting trafficability, tactical maneuver, and mission execution. While 

most control algorithms are sufficiently mature, sensor processing is lacking for autonomous 

operations. Some combination of radar, optical, and infrared (IR) sensors will likely be required; 

and image processing algorithms, especially for the latter two, are in their infancy. Most of the 

mission capabilities also require the autonomous avoidance of threat systems, including ships, 

boats, craft, active sensor systems, and, to whatever extent possible, passive detection systems. 

The community would benefit greatly from increased developments in this area. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 52 

6.6.9. Human Systems Integration (HSI) in Unmanned Systems 

Despite the implication of the name, unmanned systems still include a human element. Even in 

highly autonomous systems, humans are required to provide high-level objectives, set rules of 

engagement, supply operational constraints, and support launch-and-recovery operations. 

Humans need to interpret sensor information, monitor systems, diagnose problems, coordinate 

mission time lines, manage consumables and other resources, authorize the use of weapons or 

other mission activities, and maintain system components. That the human is no longer 

necessarily co-located in mission execution with the dynamic components of the unmanned 

system represents a modification rather than an elimination of the role of humans. 

Because the human must interact with the unmanned system using some form of system interface 

and because that interaction is clearly mission critical, it is essential that system design 

accommodate the human user. This requires attention to all elements of HSI when developing, 

acquiring, and operating unmanned systems. This includes optimizing design of the humanmachine interface and consideration of how the operators and maintainers are selected and 

trained, how many will be required or are available to operate the system, and how their 

performance may be degraded by elements of the operational environment. For example, the 

presence and availability of information within these unmanned systems does not automatically 

equate to situation awareness on the part of the human operators. It does little good to develop a 

world-class sensor system if the human operator cannot easily perceive and interpret the 

information or if the operator is unable to put the information into the overall contextual 

framework of the mission. 

6.6.10. Launch and Recovery (L&R) 

The successful operation of unmanned systems is dependent on the capability of delivering and 

recovering the unmanned systems from the operational area. A variety of challenges and 

conflicts need to be addressed, including 

3⁄4 Safety and operability throughout all L&R operations and conditions, 

3⁄4 Adaptation of the L&R system to accommodate unmanned system variants, 

3⁄4 Host platform interfaces, 

3⁄4 Commonality and portability of the unmanned system L&R system interfaces, and 

3⁄4 Development of a simple system that reduces required manpower, maintenance, and number 

of operations. 

For many platforms that will be deployed and dependent on the utility of multiple unmanned 

systems, satisfying these issues as well as automating portions of the process will provide 

enhanced operational capability. Developmental goals for unmanned system L&R should 

include operations at higher speeds and higher sea states. 

6.6.11. Power Systems 

Energy has long been a major consideration due to its effect on the ultimate performance of 

extended vehicle missions. For air-independent power, the energy source becomes a major 

factor in the design and efficiency of vehicle systems. For all operations, there is a desire to 

minimize the size, cost, and signature of the energy and propulsion system. Missions such as 

ASW and ISR with high speed and endurance requirements will require more sophisticated 

energy systems, such as fuel cells and hybrid systems. The type of energy source selected for an 

unmanned systems application is driven primarily by mission requirements for speed and 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 53 

endurance. Long endurance, payload power, and high speed are all factors that require increased 

energy capacity on the unmanned system. It is important to note that energy source selection 

cannot be completed without consideration to the impact on vehicle design, size, and type. There 

is no clear-cut choice of energy system that meets all mission needs and all vehicle design 

constraints. 

6.6.12. Processor Technology 

Just as computer components have evolved from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated 

circuits of semiconductors, future ones will need to use different technologies to achieve ever 

faster speeds and larger memories. Military, as well as business and gaming applications, will 

continue to put higher demands on processors. Although today’s processors allow some 

unmanned systems, particularly UASs, to conduct entire missions with little or no human 

intervention, the ultimate goal is to replace the operators with a mechanical facsimile or equal or 

superior thinking speed, memory capacity, and responses gained from training and experience. 

To improve performance in the past, threading was enabled in the software by splitting 

instructions into multiple streaming so that multiple processors could act upon them. Hyperthreading technology offers potentially even more efficient use of processor resources, higher 

processing throughput, and improved performance. Optical, biochemical, quantum interference 

switching, and molecular processors, or some combination of these, will be required as well as 

low-power technologies. Size and cost of such “supercomputers” present equal challenges to 

overcome. 

6.6.13. Product Format 

Engineering implementation is as important as technology development for success. System 

engineering considerations are often driven by the sensors, energy sources, and payloads as well 

as logistic concerns. However, size and number of vehicles to be used, overall system costs, and 

interoperability of systems all need to be considered in developing needed capabilities. 

6.6.14. Reliability 

Reliability is the probability that an item will perform its intended function for a specified time 

under stated conditions. Unmanned systems reliability is important because it underlies their 

affordability, availability, and acceptance and must be addressed earlier in the development 

process. Design changes are significantly more costly during low-rate initial production (LRIP) 

and final production phases than during product design. High reliability is critical to warfighter 

acceptance of and confidence in a platform and is the first hurdle in airspace considerations as it 

underlies UAS acceptance into civil airspace. To achieve the goals outlined in this Roadmap, 

validation and verification of on-board software will become more critical, while also becoming 

more complex and less deterministic. 

6.6.15. Sensors 

All unmanned systems missions depend on the effective use of sensors, most particularly the 

battlespace access and survivability, mine countermeasures (MCM), ISR, and ASW capabilities. 

Development in the sensor arena needs to concentrate on increasing area coverage rate (ACR), 

improving classification and identification capabilities, developing nontraditional tracking 

techniques, and developing CBRNE sensors. Synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) is the current 

leading candidate to best meet the requirements of the MCM mission. SAS promises to provide 

both increased ACR and increased resolution. However, the real breakthrough ASW sensor, for 

example, may be nonacoustic. This technology is not as strongly aperture-dependent as acoustic 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 6 Technologies for Unmanned Systems 

Page 54 

sensors and can, therefore, be exploited in smaller systems. Sensor processing and the 

automated decision making associated with the processing remain a developmental area for both 

MCM and ASW. For MCMs, the principal risk will be the autonomous processing of sonar and 

optical images to classify mine-like objects and identify mines. The biggest challenges are 

associated with autonomous processing, target recognition, countermeasure rejection, target 

motion analysis, and tactics. 

6.6.16. Survivability 

As unmanned systems use proliferates into an ever-increasing sphere of combat applications and 

becomes progressively more important to the warfighter, mission effectiveness and, by 

extension, combat survivability become increasingly critical. It is imperative that the 

survivability of an unmanned system be a key consideration during the system design process. 

The unmanned platform is but one component within the unmanned system. Addressing the 

survivability of simply the platform only partially addresses the survivability of the total system 

as the components operate within a collaborative multiplatform environment. Future efforts 

should concentrate on reducing the total system susceptibility and vulnerability. 

6.6.17. Weapons 

Weaponizing unmanned systems is a highly controversial issue that will require a patient “crawlwalk-run” approach as each application’s reliability and performance is proved. This approach 

will require starting with the vehicle itself to ensure its performance within and adherence to 

appropriate operational regulations. Initial applications of weaponizing any unmanned systems 

may require a “man in the loop” (e.g., MQ-1B Predator, MQ-1C Sky Warrior, and MQ-5 Hunter 

UASs) to ensure positive control of the vehicle and its weapon. For weaponized unmanned 

systems operations during war or other categories of hostile action, rules of engagement will 

likely follow the precedence from other weapon release doctrine. Guns, missiles, torpedoes, and 

nonlethal projectiles can “hang up” and create a potentially dangerous condition for unmanned 

systems recovery personnel and other platforms within the operating area. The challenge is the 

ability to remotely render unmanned weapon systems safe (with verification) or face the choice 

of having to destroy or scuttle the system. As confidence in system reliability, function, and 

targeting algorithms grows, more autonomous operations with weapons may be considered. 

Primary technical challenges for weapon release from unmanned systems include the ability to 

reliably target the right objective and achieve proper tracking under all conditions where the 

system is likely to be employed. Maintaining communications for man-in-the-loop operations 

will be a challenge, particularly over the horizon (OTH). 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 55 

Chapter 7. International Cooperation 

7.1. Assessment of Foreign Robotics 

In general, U.S. capabilities, research, and technologies are leading the way for the international 

efforts. However, Japan’s effort with HRI is comparable, while the humanoid-like robotic 

technology may be somewhat ahead of efforts in the United States at present. South Korea 

began investing heavily in HRI and may partner with the United States in the future. Canada is 

increasing its investing efforts with platforms and may be considered comparable to U.S. 

platform technology. 

A number of U.S. allies currently conduct R&D activities directed toward developing military 

capabilities for robotics and UGVs. Canada conducts research in the areas of autonomous 

systems with a focus on sensors and integration for robotic systems, control systems for robotic 

applications, data communications systems, robotic vehicle platforms, artificial intelligence for 

robotic systems, and the ergonomic aspects of human-machine interface. Germany has 

sponsored science and technology efforts directed toward the development of critical 

technologies for UGVs including perception, intelligent control, and autonomous robotic vehicle 

platforms as well as human interface and planning. Recently, Germany began to focus on the 

development of small (i.e., man-packable) robots. Australia is concentrating on the areas of 

platform-related technologies and weapons, man-unmanned systems, control theory, and control 

systems. 

France is focusing on the areas of system collaboration, weapons, level of autonomy, and night 

vision and electronic sensors to include countermine and demining technologies. The United 

Kingdom is primarily working on navigation, mobility, communication, and ground vehicle 

integration. Israel is conducting work on tank systems dealing with laser rangefinders and the 

design and fabrication of tank systems. South Korea recently initiated research focused on the 

development of a platform similar to multifunction utility/logistics equipment (MULE) as well as 

on real-time tracking and HRI efforts, which they hope will ultimately result in a vehicle that can 

be used to monitor the Demilitarization Zone. Other international efforts include HRI by 

Switzerland and systems for mine clearing and mobility by Denmark. In summary, these 

countries are concentrating on capabilities for urban operation and combat application, as 

opposed to Japan, where defense applications for robotic technologies are their primary goal. 

The current population and societal structure in China create an environment in which 

requirements for use of robotics do not necessarily parallel those of the United States. As a 

broad generalization, work appears to be primarily directed toward functions where human 

operators cannot function, as opposed to replacing human operators in hazardous military 

environments. One of the few references to military robotics found, an abstract from a thesis 

posted by the Institute for Intelligent Machines of the National Academy of Sciences, makes 

reference to Chinese developments in military robotics as “very late compared with other 

developed countries.” The thesis is aimed at teleoperation for ordnance disposal and represents a 

modest state of the art. Biomimetics, including serpentine, swimming, and human/quadrupedal 

approaches, are the primary focus in terms of R&D efforts in locomotion. Space robotics is an 

area of focus in several institutions, and there are reports of joint developments of intelligent 

multirobot (leader/host with four “followers”) at the Beijing University of Aerospace and 

Aeronautics and the Polytechnic University of Milan. Work at Tsinghua University’s Robotics 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 56 

and Automation Laboratory focuses on what are referred to as “Special Mobile Robots” for such 

applications as humanoid/multipedal locomotion, pipe crawling, and biochip manufacturing. 

Other work at Tsinghua University and other institutes reflects an emphasis on intelligent 

systems for robotics. In this area, China has a number of apparent interests and infrastructure 

strengths. Much of the effort is directed toward sensing, perception, and information 

technologies, including multi-agent systems that would be applicable to advanced robotic 

concepts. Work in mobile ad hoc networking and intelligent agents is also widespread and 

addresses one of the key enabling technologies for advanced multirobot systems. To summarize, 

while Chinese efforts in robotic military systems may currently trail efforts of the United States 

and other western countries (notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), they have 

strong infrastructure capabilities. On-going research is addressing a number of enabling 

technologies that will be required for future robotics. Their ability to pursue and develop 

military robotics, should they choose that route, should be taken as a given. 

7.2. International Robotics Agreements 

The United States is sharing R&D information on unmanned systems with the United Kingdom, 

Australia, Sweden, France, Israel, Germany, Canada, Singapore, Norway, Italy, Japan, and South 

Korea. There are also active or planned cooperative efforts on unmanned systems with 

Singapore, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Sweden, and Italy. 

Key efforts include the Air Force’s high-altitude long-endurance UAS flight demonstration 

(performing Global Hawk flight trials with Germany), the SPARTAN SCOUT advanced concept 

technology demonstrations with participation from France and Singapore (demonstrating the 

military utility of UMSs for assured access and force protection in the littorals), and the NATO 

airborne ground surveillance program (whose concept includes the use of Global Hawk UASs). 

The following terminology and abbreviations are used in 7.2.1 through 7.2.4: 

3⁄4 Data Exchange Agreement (DEA). An international agreement that allows for the 

exchange of R&D information in a technical area under the auspices of a master information 

exchange agreement. DEAs are the same as information exchange program annexes (IEAs). 

3⁄4 Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement (MOU/MOA). Either a framework 

international agreement to allow for cooperative R&D project arrangements or agreements 

(PAs) to be placed or large cooperative agreements for large programs or phases of 

programs. 

3⁄4 Project Arrangement or Agreement (PA). An international agreement for a specific 

project under the auspices of an MOU or MOA. 

7.2.1. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

1. Project Title: Electronic Warfare Support (ES) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Demonstration 

Country: Canada, UK 

Agreement Dates: 10/1/2004 – 9/30/2007 

Description: The purpose of this project is to expand current capabilities to support more 

accurate geo-location of GPS jammers in a high-threat situation by improving anti-jamming 

protection on an UAS to support electronic warfare collection efforts. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 57 

2. Project Title: NATO Airborne Ground Surveillance System Program 

Country: NATO 

Description: NATO Airborne Ground Surveillance System includes Global Hawk UASs 

equipped with a Multiplatform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) radar. 

3. Project Title: Land Warfare Concept Technology (LWCT) 

Country: Singapore 

Agreement Dates: 9/13/2004 – 12/31/2008 

Description: DARPA provided two Learning Applied to Ground Robots (LAGR) vehicles 

to the Singapore Defense Sciences Organization National Laboratory for experimentation 

and testing. 

7.2.2. Air Force 

1. Project Title: Unmanned Air Vehicles (DEA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 11/13/2002 – 11/13/2007 

Description: The scope of the IEA comprises the exchange of R&D information on 

unmanned, combat and offensive air vehicles technology and related studies and analyses. 

2. Project Title: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) (DEA) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 5/20/2004 – 5/19/2009 

Description: The purpose of this DEA is to exchange research, development, test, and 

evaluation (RDT&E) information on UASs. The RDT&E information that will be 

exchanged focuses on the technologies, processes, and systems attributes that are key to 

understanding the utilization of unmanned air technology. 

3. Project Title: Future Technology for Aerial Refueling (PA) 

Country: France, Germany, Italy and UK 

Agreement Dates: Proposed for FY2007–12 (Proposed PA, to be established under new 

Five-Power Research Technology Project (RTP) MOU) 

Description: The nations will conduct collaborative study work in the automation of aerial 

refueling, to include manned and unmanned receivers, operation in a mixed manned and 

unmanned combat environment, and operation of unmanned tankers. 

4. Project Title: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) (DEA) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 5/20/2004 – 05/19/2009 

Description: The purpose of this DEA is to exchange RDT&E information on UASs. The 

RDT&E information that will be exchanged focuses on the technologies, processes, and 

systems attributes that are key to understanding the utilization of unmanned air technology. 

5. Project Title: Refractive Turbulence, the Surveillance Mission, and Transient Propagation 

Disturbances (PA) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 10/16/2006 – 10/15/2009 

Description: AFRL/VS (Space Vehicle Directorate) and Defense Science and Technology 

Organization intend to demonstrate increased ability to measure, analyze, and predict the 

severity, duration, and location of the refractive turbulence events that lead to transient 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 58 

electronic disconnectivity and fluctuating surveillance image degradation within the same 

global environment in which manned and unmanned systems are required to operate. 

6. Project Title: Operator Functional State Assessment and Adaptive Aiding Implementation 

(PA) 

Country: Sweden 

Agreement Dates: 2/16/2007 – 2/16/2011 

Description: This PA will develop accurate methods of on-line assessment of the operator’s 

cognitive state and investigate methods by which intelligent agents tailor, in real time, the 

system’s demands upon the operator. This PA will also demonstrate how adaptive systems 

can aid and support the human operator during situations of high mental load. 

7.2.3. Army 

1. Project Title: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (DEA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 12/1999 – 11/2009 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of scientific and technical information on 

the research and development of UASs and remotely piloted vehicles in support of land 

combat. 

2. Project Title: Mines, Countermine, and Demolitions (DEA) 

Country: Sweden 

Agreement Dates: 11/2002 – 11/2007 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of RDT&E information on mines, 

countermine, and demolition technologies. 

3. Project Title: Missile Technologies (DEA) 

Country: France 

Agreement Dates: Proposed 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of scientific and technical information of 

mutual interest on the RDT&E of technologies applicable to Army missile systems. The 

DEA specifically relates to the reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and 

engagement technology of unmanned systems. 

4. Project Title: Electronic Warfare (DEA) 

Country: Israel 

Agreement Dates: 8/1972 

Description: Classified 

5. Project Title: Advanced VTOL Technology (DEA) 

Country: Germany 

Agreement Dates: 12/2003 – 12/2008 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of R&D information of mutual interest in 

the field of advanced VTOL technology. 

6. Project Title: Missiles (DEA) 

Country: United Kingdom 

Agreement Dates: 2/1996 – 6/2011 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of information on capabilities and 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 59 

technologies of missiles, guided weapons, rockets, smart weapons and munitions, UASs, and 

remotely piloted vehicles in support of land combat. The DEA specifically relates to the 

integration of reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and engagement technology 

into unmanned systems. 

7. Project Title: Unmanned Systems (DEA) 

Country: Singapore 

Agreement Dates: 2/2004 – 2/2009 

Description: This DEA concerns a broad range of technologies related to U.S. Army 

programs for unmanned systems including UASs, UGVs, and supporting equipment. 

8. Project Title: Military Rotorcraft and UAVs (DEA) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 5/2004 – 5/2009 

Description: This DEA provides for an exchange of data for military rotorcraft and UASs 

between the United States and Australia. 

9. Project Title: Missile Technologies for Land Forces (DEA) 

Country: Canada 

Agreement Dates: 12/2004 – 12/2014 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of scientific and technical information of 

mutual interest on the RDT&E on missile technologies for land forces. The DEA 

specifically relates to the integration of reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and 

engagement technology into unmanned systems. 

10. Project Title: Survivability Technologies for Force Protection (DEA) 

Country: Israel 

Agreement Dates: 12/2003 – 

Description: This DEA covers the exchange of scientific and technical information of 

mutual interest on information related to RDT&E of military materiel and facilities. 

11. Project Title: Countermine R&D and Systems (DEA) 

Country: Japan 

Agreement Dates: 4/1984 – 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of technical data related to RDT&E of 

systems and technologies in mine and minefield detection, mine and minefield neutralization, 

vehicle protection and hardening, and applications of robotics and automated equipment 

technology. 

12. Project Title: Unmanned Systems (DEA) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 11/2002 – 11/2012 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of scientific and technical information of 

mutual interest on conceptual, operational, methodological, architectural, and technical 

aspects confined to the individual and combined development of command, control, and 

communications technology. 

13. Project Title: Robotic Systems (DEA) 

Country: United Kingdom 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 60 

Agreement Dates: 4/1996 – 5/2008 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of data, programs, and experience in the 

field of robotics for the planning, design, and operation of robotics systems for military 

purposes. 

14. Project Title: Tactical Missiles (DEA) 

Country: Korea 

Agreement Dates: 6/2003 – 6/2013 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of scientific and technical information of 

mutual interest on the RDT&E of tactical missiles. The DEA specifically relates to the 

integration of reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and engagement technology 

into unmanned systems. 

15. Project Title: Armored Vehicles (DEA) 

Country: France 

Agreement Dates: 11/1961 – 

Description: This DEA provides for the exchange of armored vehicles research and 

development on current and future programs. 

16. Project Title: Robotic Systems for Military Systems (DEA) 

Country: Germany 

Agreement Dates: 3/05 – 3/10 

Description: Exchange of data, programs, and experience in the field of robotics for the 

planning, design, and operation of robotics systems for military purposes. 

17. Project Title: Robotic Systems for Military Forces (DEA) 

Country: Israel 

Agreement Dates: 11/03 – 11/07 

Description: Exchange of scientific and technical information of mutual interest on robotic 

systems to include the following teleoperated/autonomous technology areas: 

communications, navigation, mobility/control architecture, mission modules, man-robot 

interfaces, performance measurement, and operational concept development. 

7.2.4. Navy 

1. Project Title: Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) Cooperative Development Program (MOU) 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 01/13/2007 – 7/13/2008 

Description: The SDD phase for multimission maritime aircraft (MMA) and BAMS UAS 

(Framework MOU) encompasses either or both the MMA and the BAMS UAS and 

potentially associated technologies or cooperative projects leading to full-scale development 

of the MMA and/or BAMS system. 

2. Project Title: SPARTAN SCOUT ACTD (MOA) 

Country: France 

Agreement Dates: 01/29/2004 – 01/29/2012 

Description: This ACTD is to demonstrate the military utility of USVs for assured access 

and force protection in the littorals. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 61 

3. Project Title: SPARTAN SCOUT ACTD (PA) 

Country: Singapore 

Agreement Dates: 03/08/2003 – 03/08/2010 

Description: This PA is the first under the new Singapore RDT&E agreement. The ACTD 

is set up to demonstrate the military utility of USVs. 

4. Project Title: Feature-Based Navigation for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) in 

Very Shallow Water (PA) 

Country: Singapore 

Agreement Dates: 03/30/2006 – 03/30/2010 

Description: This work will involve joint development of algorithms and techniques, 

supporting data collection, and laboratory experiments carried out by each nation and lead up 

to an integration of jointly developed algorithms on a Singapore-supplied autonomous 

underwater vehicle equipped with sonar and other sensors for a demonstration in Singapore 

waters. 

5. Project Title: Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) for Mine Countermeasures (MCM) 

(PA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 08/09/2002 – 08/09/2007 

Description: Currently, both nations have MCM capability requirements and similar 

concepts for application of autonomous platform systems to address the capability 

requirements. Leveraging the experience from the past investments and coordinating the 

planned resources and efforts of each, the collaboration will investigate different approaches 

within the key technology areas cost effectively. 

6. Project Title: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) Intelligence, Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance (ISR) and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Technology (PA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 11/21/2003 – 11/21/2007 

Description: This project will develop and demonstrate an integrated suite of sensors and 

autonomous vehicle systems for ISR and ASW missions and investigate energy storage 

systems for long-endurance operations. It enhances the U.S. efforts in the FNC area of 

underwater autonomy and ASW sensors. 

7. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: France 

Agreement Dates: 5/16/2003 – 5/16/2008 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with France. 

8. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

Technology 

Country: Australia 

Agreement Dates: 6/17/2004 – 6/17/2009 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Australia. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 62 

9. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems 

(IEA) 

Country: Germany 

Agreement Dates: 8/30/2004 – 8/30/2009 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Germany. 

10. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: Italy 

Agreement Dates: 3/22/2004 – 3/22/2009 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Italy. 

11. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: Canada 

Agreement Dates: 6/13/1995 – 3/14/2007 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Canada. 

12. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Air Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: Korea 

Agreement Dates: 3/14/1997 – 3/14/2007 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Korea. 

13. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: Israel 

Agreement Dates: 1/16/1996 – 1/16/2011 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Israel. 

14. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aircraft Systems (IEA) 

Country: Singapore 

Agreement Dates: Proposed in development 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with Singapore. 

15. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Underwater Vehicles 

(IEA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 8/2/2004 – 8/2/2009 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UUVs with the United Kingdom. 

16. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: UK 

Agreement Dates: 06/06/1995 – 6/6/2010 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on UASs with the United Kingdom. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 63 

17. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Anti-Submarine/Anti-Surface Ship 

Torpedo and Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Systems (IEA) 

Country: Japan 

Agreement Dates: 2/4/2002 – 2/4/2007 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on anti-submarine and anti-surface ship torpedoes and UUVs with Japan. 

18. Project Title: Information Exchange Program Annex Mine Warfare and Unmanned 

Vehicles (IEA) 

Country: Norway 

Agreement Dates: 3/18/2005 – 3/18/2010 

Description: This project is a reciprocal government-to-government exchange of R&D 

information on mine warfare and UUVs with Norway. 

19. Project Title: Project Churchill, agreement with UK as part of the Navy-led Unmanned 

Combat Air Systems (UCAS) Program 

Country: UK 

Dates: 12/21/2004 – 07/31/2009 

Description: The United States and United Kingdom will jointly create a distributed 

simulation environment capability using Navy, Air Force, and U.K. Defence Science and 

Technology Laboratory M&S capabilities. They will then select portions of the U.K. 

unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstration results of efforts functionality already 

completed; jointly participate in modeling, simulation, tests, and demonstrations; and 

conduct additional tests using U.S. J-UCAS and U.K. UCAV assets to gather further 

information regarding coalition employment and interoperability of UCAV. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Chapter 7 International Cooperation 

Page 64 

7.3. Treaty Concerns for Unmanned Systems 

DoDD 2060.1 directs that “all DoD activities shall be fully compliant with arms control 

agreements of the U.S. Government.”17 Additionally, DoDD 5000.1 directs that the “acquisition 

and procurement of DoD weapons and weapon systems shall be consistent with all applicable 

domestic law and treaties and international agreements” and that “an attorney authorized to 

conduct such legal reviews in the Department shall conduct the legal review of the intended 

acquisition of weapons or weapons systems.”18 U.S. Government arms control agreements 

concerning unmanned systems include the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), the Missile 

Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 

(CFE), the Vienna Document 1999 (VDOC), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 

(INF), the Global Exchange of Military Information (GEMI), and the United Nations 

Transparency in Armaments Resolution (UNTIA). Conventional arms agreements that do not 

name unmanned systems, but mention military air and ground vehicles include the CFE, VDOC, 

INF, GEMI, and UNTIA. Conventional arms agreements that address unmanned systems 

directly include the WA and MTCR. 

WA-controlled dual-use items include unmanned systems in item ML 10I munitions list in 

section 9.A.12 and technology applicable to unmanned systems in sections 9.D.1, 9.E.3, and 

9.D.2. MTCR restricts unmanned systems as a Category I item in section 1.A.2, provided that 

the UAS can carry a 1100-pound payload for 162 nautical miles. MTCR Category II items, 

under sections 19.A.2 and 19.A.3, include technology and equipment that may be used in 

Category I unmanned systems. 

CFE articles I and II obligate participant adherence and define conventional weapons that, within 

the area of application, are subject to terms of reduction and limits outlined in articles IV–VI. 

Unmanned systems may, subject to review, meet the definitions of conventional armaments and 

equipment subject to the CFE treaty. Also subject to review, VDOC may require the U.S. 

Government to report combat equipment and/or new weapons systems as they fall under article I, 

paragraphs 10.2.5, 10.5, and 11.2, and follow-on items of the VDOC. Ground-launched cruise 

missiles are restricted by INF in article II, paragraph 2; however, air-to-surface weapons are not 

considered under the INF treaty. Unmanned systems that are not ground launched, or take off 

without the aid of launching equipment, and are designed to return from mission, do not fall 

within the definition of a ground-launched cruise missile. GEMI requires the U.S. Government 

to share information on holdings of major weapons and equipment systems listed under 

paragraph 3. Air and ground vehicles, irrespective of manned or unmanned, may, upon review, 

fall under the categories of major weapon and equipment systems subject to information sharing 

under paragraph 3 of GEMI. Under the UNTIA Annex, Register of Conventional Arms, 

unmanned systems, subject to review, may meet the definitions of items defined in 

paragraph 2.a., “concerning international arms transfers.” 

 

17 DoDD 2060.1, paragraph 3.3.1, June 9, 2001. 

18 DoDD 5000.1, paragraph E1.1.15, Legal Compliance, 12 May 2003. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 65 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

A.1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

A.1.1. MQ-1 Predator 

User Service: Air Force, Army, and Navy 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 120+ (all types) Delivered/95 Available/170 Planned 

Status: Program of Record (POR)

Background: The Air Force MQ-1 Predator was one of the initial ACTDs in 1994 and transitioned to an Air Force 

program in 1997. Since 1995, Predator has flown surveillance missions over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and 

Afghanistan. In 2001, the Air Force added a laser designator for use with precision-guided munitions and the ability 

to employ Hellfire missiles from the Predator; these additions led to the change in the Predator’s designation from 

RQ-1 to MQ-1 to reflect its multimission capability. The Air Force operates three Active component Predator 

squadrons and three Air National Guard Predator squadrons. The MQ-1 fleet reached the 170,000 flight hour mark 

in July 2006 with over 80 percent of the hours in combat. It was declared operationally capable (initial operational 

capability (IOC)) in March 2005. The Navy purchased three RQ-1As for R&D as well as training that currently 

support lead-in training for the Air Force MQ-9 Reaper and Army Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) crews. 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

Characteristics: 

MQ-1 B 

Length 27 ft Wing Span 55 ft 

Gross Weight 2250 lb Payload Capacity 450 lb 

Fuel Capacity 640 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Rotax 914F Power 115 hp 

Data Link(s) BLOS Frequency Ku-band 

 LOS C-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 24+ hr clean 

16 hr w/external stores 

Maximum/Loiter Speeds 118/70 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft Radius 500 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor(s) EO/IR Sensor Model(s) AN/AAS-52 

 SAR AN/ZPQ-1 

Weapons 2xAGM-114 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 66 

A.1.2. MQ-1C Sky Warrior (formerly Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP)) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., San Diego, California 

Inventory: 0 Delivered/132 Aircraft Planned (11 systems; 12 unmanned aircraft per system) 

Status: POR 

Background: The MQ-1C Sky Warrior UAS will provide COCOMs with a much improved real-time responsive 

capability to conduct long-dwell, wide-area reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, communications relay, 

and attack missions. The major difference between Sky Warrior and preceding models of Predator is its use of a 

diesel engine to meet Army one-fuel requirements. Milestone B decision was made on April 20, 2005, for entry into 

SDD, with contract award to General Atomics in August 2005 after a competitive down-select process. Taking off 

from an airfield, the Sky Warrior is operated via the Army’s OneSystem GCS and lands via an automatic takeoff 

and landing system. The Sky Warrior’s payload includes EO/IR and SAR with moving target indicator (SAR/MTI) 

capabilities. Additionally, two 250-pound and two 500-pound hard points under the main wings provide an attack 

capability. Seventeen SDD airplanes will begin the fabrication process in 2007, and Milestone C and LRIP are 

expected in FY2008. Sky Warrior UAS will be fielded to each of the Army’s divisions. Current funding resources 

support the SDD phase of the UAS in order to progress through the critical design review, design readiness review, 

and fabrication of SDD aircraft and components. Additionally, the budgeting supports long-lead procurements of 

parts to support LRIP and developmental and operational testing needs. 

Characteristics: 

MQ-1C 

Length 28 ft Wing Span 56 ft 

Gross Weight 3200 lb Payload Capacity 800 lb/500 lb external 

Fuel Capacity 600 lb Fuel Type JP-8 

Engine Make Thielert diesel Power 135 hp 

Data Link(s) BLOS Frequency Ku-band 

 LOS C-band 

(TCDL) 

Performance: 

Endurance 40 hr w/250 lb payload Maximum/Loiter Speeds 130/60 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft Radius 162 nm/648 nm w/SATCOM 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO/IR/laser rangefinder/ 

laser designator 

Sensor Make TBD 

 SAR/MTI TBD 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 67 

A.1.3. RQ-2 Pioneer 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Pioneer UAV, Inc. 

Inventory: 175 Delivered/33 Available/Production Complete 

Status: Non Program of Record (NPOR) 

Background: The Navy/Marine Corps RQ-2 Pioneer has served with Navy, Marine Corps, and Army units and has 

been deployed aboard ship and ashore since 1986. Initially deployed aboard battleships to provide gunnery spotting, 

its mission evolved into reconnaissance and surveillance, primarily for amphibious forces. Launched by rocket 

assist, by pneumatic launcher, or from a runway, it recovers on a runway with arresting gear after flying up to 

5 hours with a 75-pound payload. It currently flies with a gimbaled EO/IR sensor and relays analog video in real 

time via a C-band LOS data link. Since 1991, the Pioneer has flown reconnaissance missions during the Persian 

Gulf, Bosnia, and Kosovo conflicts. It is currently flying in support of Marine Corps forces in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. The Navy ceased Pioneer operations at the end of FY2002 and transferred assets to the Marine Corps. 

The Marine Corps is sustaining the Pioneer to extend their operations with it until replaced by the RQ-7 Shadow. 

http://uav.navair.navy.mil/

Characteristics: 

RQ-2B 

Length 14 ft Wing Span 17 ft 

Gross Weight 452 lb Payload Capacity 75 lb 

Fuel Capacity 76 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Sachs SF 350 Power 26 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS Frequency C-band 

UHF 

Performance: 

Endurance 5 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110/65 kt 

Ceiling 15,000 ft Radius 100 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway/pneumatic launch Landing Means Net/runway with arresting gear 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Tamam POP 200/300 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 68 

A.1.4. RQ-4 Global Hawk 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 12 Delivered/61 Planned (7 ACTD + 

54 production aircraft) 

Status: POR 

Background: The Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk is a 

high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft 

designed to provide wide area coverage of up to 

40,000 nm2

 per day. The size differences between 

the RQ-4A (Block 10) and RQ-4B (Blocks 20, 30, 

40) models are shown in the figure at right and the 

table below. Global Hawk completed its first flight 

in February 1998 and transitioned from an ACTD 

into its Engineering and Manufacturing Development 

(EMD) phase in March 2001. Its EO/IR and 

SAR/MTI sensors allow day/night, all-weather 

reconnaissance. Sensor data are relayed to its mission control element, which distributes imagery to up to seven 

theater exploitation systems. The Air Force has restructured the program to procure 47 “B model” aircraft through 

FY2013. The first B model, a Block 20, flew its maiden flight on March 1, 2007. The first multi-intelligence 

payload, which includes an Advanced Signals Intelligence Program (ASIP) payload, began flight test in May 2007, 

followed by the MP-RTIP payload in July 2007. The Air Force plans to add other sensor and communications 

capabilities in a spiral development process as this fleet is procured. Ground stations in theaters equipped with the 

Common Imagery Processor will eventually be able to receive Global Hawk imagery directly. The first operational 

production aircraft, the Block 10 “A model,” deployed in January 2006 to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and 

replaced the prototype ACTD configuration, which had been deployed there for most of the time since 2001. 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

Characteristics: 

 RQ-4A 

 (Block 10) 

RQ-4B 

(Block 20, 30, 40)

 RQ-4A 

 (Block 10) 

RQ-4B 

(Block 20, 30, 40)

Length 44.4 ft 47.6 ft Wing Span 116.2 ft 130.9 ft 

Gross Weight 26,750 lb 32,250 lb Payload Capacity 1950 lb 3000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 14,700 lb 16,320 lb Fuel Type JP-8 JP-8 

Engine Make Rolls Royce 

AE-3007H 

Rolls Royce 

AE-3007H 

Power, SLS 7600 lb 7600 lb 

Data Link(s) LOS LOS Frequency UHF UHF 

LOS LOS X-band CDL X-band CDL 

BLOS (SATCOM) BLOS (SATCOM) Ku-band 

INMARSAT 

Ku-band 

INMARSAT 

Performance: 

Endurance 32 hr 28 hr Maximum/Loiter 

Speeds 

350/340 kt 340/310 kt 

Ceiling 65,000 ft 60,000 ft Radius 5400 nm 5400 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Runway Landing Means Runway Runway 

Sensor EO/IR EO/IR and 

signals intelligence 

Sensor Make Northrop 

Grumman 

Northrop Grumman 

 SAR/MTI SAR/MTI Raytheon Raytheon 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 69 

A.1.5. RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/2 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The GHMD program is a nonacquisition demonstration program. Its purpose is to provide the Navy 

with a multi-intelligence, high-altitude, persistent ISR demonstration capability for doctrine; CONOPS; TTP 

development; and participation in naval, joint, and homeland defense exercises. In FY2003, the Navy contracted 

with Northrop Grumman through the Air Force Global Hawk program office for the purchase of 

3⁄4 Two RQ-4A (Block 10) Global Hawks with EO/IR and SAR sensors, 

3⁄4 Ground control/support equipment, 

3⁄4 Engineering to include Navy changes for 

3⁄4 Maritime sensor modes software (maritime surveillance, target acquisition, inverse SAR), 

3⁄4 360-degree field-of-regard electronic support measures capability, 

3⁄4 Satellite and direct data link upgrades. 

These two unmanned aircraft with sensors and ground control and support equipment are based at the Navy’s 

GHMD main operating base at Patuxent River, Maryland. http://uav.navair.navy.mil
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 70 

A.1.6. RQ-5A/MQ-5B Hunter 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation, Sierra Vista, Arizona 

Inventory: 80 Delivered/54 In Service 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The RQ-5 Hunter originated as a Joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps UAS program. It was terminated 

in 1996, but through the procurement of a limited number of LRIP systems, Hunter exists today. It is currently 

fielded to III, XVIII, and V Corps. The modernization from the RQ-5A to the MQ-5B was initiated in FY2004. The 

MQ-5Bs are modified with heavy fuel engines (HFEs) and are capable of carrying the Viper Strike and BLU 108 

munitions. Hunter deployed to Macedonia to support NATO Balkan operations in 1999 and to Iraq in 2002 where it 

continues to support combat operations today. 

Characteristics: 

 RQ-5A MQ-5B RQ-5A MQ-5B 

Length 22.6 ft 23 ft Wing Span 29.2 ft 34.25 ft 

Gross Weight 1620 lb 1950 lb Payload Capacity 200 lb 280 lb 

Fuel Capacity 421 lb HFE 280 lb Fuel Type MOGAS JP-8 

Engine Make Moto Guzzi (×2) 

gas engine 

Mercedes HFE 

(×2) 

Power 57 hp (×2) 57 hp (×2) 

56 hp (×2) 

Data Link LOS LOS Frequency C-band C-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 11.6 hr 20.5 hr Maximum/Loiter 

Speeds 

106/89 kt 110/70 kt 

Ceiling 15,000 ft 18,000 ft Radius 144 nm 144 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Runway Landing Means Runway/Wire Runway/Wire 

Sensor EO/IR EO/IR Sensor Make Tamam MOSP Tamam MOSP 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 71 

A.1.7. RQ-7 Shadow 200 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: AAI 

Inventory: 232 Delivered/392 Planned (4 unmanned aircraft per system) 

Status: POR 

Background: The Army selected the RQ-7 Shadow 200 (formerly TUAV) in December 1999 to meet the Brigadelevel unmanned aircraft requirement for support to ground maneuver commanders. The Shadow either is catapulted 

from a rail or takes off from a strip. It is operated via the Army’s OneSystem GCS and lands via an automated 

takeoff and landing system (recovering with the aid of arresting gear) and net. Its gimbaled upgraded plug-in optical 

payload (POP) 300 EO/IR sensor relays video in real time via a C-band LOS data link and has the capability for IR 

illumination (laser pointing). The first upgraded B model was delivered in August 2004. The RQ-7B can now 

accommodate the high bandwidth TCDL and features a 16-inch longer wingspan, endurance of 5+ hours (greater 

fuel capacity), upgraded engine, and improved flight computer. Full-rate production and IOC occurred in 

September 2002. Future upgrades include complete TCDL modernizations and laser designation technology 

(POP 400). Current funding allows the Army to procure 85 complete systems of four aircraft each for the active 

duty and reserve forces. The Army’s acquisition objective, with the inclusion of the Army Reserve component, is 

85 total systems, with potential for increase. Shadow systems have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 

support of the GWOT. The Marine Corps selected Shadow to replace its Pioneer UASs in 2006 and fielding of 

13 systems (52 aircraft) to USMC UAS squadrons began in May 2007.

Characteristics: 

RQ-7B 

Length 11.2 ft Wing Span 14 ft 

Gross Weight 375 lb Payload Capacity 60 lb 

Fuel Capacity 73 lb Fuel Type MOGAS 

Engine Make UEL AR-741 Power 38 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 Frequency S-band; UHF 

 LOS video C-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 6 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110/60 kt 

Ceiling 15,000 ft Radius >68 nm 

Takeoff Means Catapult/rolling takeoff Landing Means Rolling landing/arresting wire 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Tamam POP 300 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 72 

A.1.8. MQ-8 Fire Scout 

User Service: Army and Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/Up To 168 Planned (as of 31 July 2007) 

Status: POR 

Background: The VTOL Tactical UAV (VTUAV) program is currently in EMD. The MQ-8B Fire Scout is the 

aircraft segment of the system. Two RQ-8A air vehicles and four GCSs were used for risk reduction testing prior to 

commencement of MQ-8B flight testing. Over 210 successful test flights have been accomplished during the risk 

reduction phase, demonstrating autonomous shipboard operations, autonomous flight, and GCS operations. The 

Army selected the four-bladed MQ-8B model as its Category IV unmanned aircraft for its FCS in 2003. The Navy 

has selected the MQ-8B to support the LCS class of surface vessels. The Navy’s VTUAV system includes tactical 

control system (TCS) software within its GCS and supports standards-based interoperability through implementation 

of STANAG 4586 and TCDL. http://uav.navair.navy.mil/. 

Characteristics: 

MQ-8B 

Length 22.9 ft Wing Span 27.5 ft 

Gross Weight 3150 lb Payload Capacity 600 lb 

Fuel Capacity 1292 lb Fuel Type JP-5/JP-8 

Engine Make Rolls Royce 250-C20W Power 320 shp continuous 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 Frequency Ku-band/UHF 

 LOS video Ku-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 6+ hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 117/ hover kt 

Ceiling 20,000 ft Radius 150 nm 

Takeoff Means Vertical Landing Means Hover 

Sensor EO/IR/laser designator and 

rangefinder 

Sensor Make FSI Brite Star II 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 73 

A.1.9. MQ-9 Reaper (formerly Predator B) 

User Service: Air Force and Navy 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 11 Delivered/73 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The MQ-9 is a medium- to high-altitude, long-endurance UAS. Its primary mission is to act as a 

persistent hunter-killer for critical time-sensitive targets and secondarily to act as an intelligence collection asset. 

The integrated sensor suite includes a SAR/MTI capability and a turret containing electro-optical and midwave IR 

sensors, a laser rangefinder, and a laser target designator. The crew for the MQ-9 is one pilot and one sensor 

operator. The Air Force proposed the MQ-9 system in response to the DoD request for GWOT initiatives in 

October 2001. In June 2003, ACC approved the MQ-9 CONOPS, and, in February 2004, it approved the final 

basing decision to put the MQ-9 squadron at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada. The Air Force activated the first 

Reaper Squadron (42d Attack Squadron) at Creech Air Force Base on 9 November 2006 with the first MQ-9 aircraft 

arriving 13 March 2007. As an R&D project, the Navy is acquiring one Reaper for demonstrating sensor 

capabilities and related tactics, techniques, and procedures. AMO of DHS operates its own MQ-9s for border 

surveillance from Ft Huachuca, Arizona. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=6405

Characteristics: 

MQ-9A 

Length 36 ft Wing Span 66 ft 

Gross Weight 10,500 lb Payload Capacity *3750 lb 

Fuel Capacity 4000 lb Fuel Type JP 

Engine Make Honeywell TPE 331-10Y Power 900 SHP 

Data Link(s) BLOS Frequency Ku-band 

 LOS C-band 

* Up to 3000 lb total externally on wing hard points, 750 lb internal. 

Performance: 

Endurance 24 hr/clean 

4–20 hr/external stores 

Maximum/Loiter Speeds 230/120 kt 

Ceiling 50,000 ft Radius 1655 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor(s) EO/IR/ laser rangefinder/ 

laser designator 

Sensor Model(s) MTS-B 

 SAR/MTI AN/DAS-1 

Weapons 4×500 lb class or 

10×250 lb class 

 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 74 

A.1.10. Unmanned Combat Aircraft System – Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturers: Northrop Grumman Corporation (X-47B) 

Inventory: 2 X-47B Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Northrop Grumman X-47B Demonstrator 

Background: The program originated as a prototype development for the Air Force (Boeing) and the Navy 

(Northrop Grumman). The two demonstrator programs combined into a joint program (J-UCAS) under Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency management in FY2004 and subsequently transferred responsibility to the Air 

Force in FY2006. A PDM III and a QDR decision resulted in J-UCAS program management and technologies 

transitioning to the Navy UCAS demonstration program, which was restructured as the UCAS-Carrier 

Demonstration (UCAS-D). Northrop Grumman was awarded the UCAS-D contract in August 2007. The UCAS-D 

will not include any mission systems or sensors. First flight is planned for 2010, with sea trials following in 2011 

and a first attempt at a carrier landing in 2012. 

Characteristics: 

 X47B X47B 

Length 38 ft Wing Span 62 ft 

Gross Weight 46,000 lb Payload 4500 lb 

Fuel Capacity 17,000 lb Fuel Type JP-8 

Engine Make F100-PW-220U Power (SLS) 7600 lb 

Data Link(s) Link 16 Frequency Ku, Ka 

Performance: 

Endurance 9 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 460/TBD kt 

Ceiling 40,000 ft Radius 1600 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway/carrier Landing Means Runway/carrier 

Notional Sensor(s) ESM, 

SAR/MTI, EO/IR 

Notional Sensor 

Model(s) 

ALR-69 

TBD 

Notional Weapons GBU-31 

Small-diameter bomb 

 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 75 

A.1.11. Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 0 Delivered/TBD Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The BAMS UAS is a pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program (pre-MDAP) ACAT 1D program to 

develop a multiple-sensor, persistent maritime ISR UAS that provides persistent ISR to supported commanders. 

BAMS UAS will be a force multiplier for the Joint Forces and fleet commanders: it will enhance their situation 

awareness of the battlespace and shorten the sensor-to-shooter kill chain. BAMS UAS will operate both 

independently and cooperatively with other assets to provide a more effective and supportable persistent maritime 

surveillance capability than currently exists. BAMS UAS will be a Navy fleet asset for operational and tactical 

users. Additionally, BAMS collected data will support a variety of intelligence activities and nodes. In a secondary 

role, it will also be used alone or in conjunction with other assets to respond to theater level, operational, or national 

strategic tasking. The BAMS UAS will serve as an adjunct to the MMA to leverage the unique attributes of each 

platform to optimize the family-of-systems approach to contribute to dominant maritime domain awareness. 

Collocation of BAMS UAS mission crews with Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force (MPRF) will provide 

operator synergy: it will allow close coordination of missions and leverage common mission support infrastructure. 

BAMS UAS also complements the current national, theater, and other Military Department collection systems by 

providing persistent ISR in the maritime and littoral areas 24 hours a day. The BAMS UAS will provide DoD with 

a unique capability to persistently detect, classify, and identify maritime targets within a large volume of the 

maritime battlespace. The request for proposals for the SDD and LRIP phases was released on 15 February 2007 to 

support Milestone B in the fourth quarter FY2007. IOC is planned for 2014. http://uav.navair.navy.mil
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 76 

A.1.12. Improved Gnat Extended Range (I-Gnat-ER) / Warrior Alpha 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Inventory: 10 Delivered/17 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Army acquired three I-Gnat-ER unmanned 

aircraft in FY2004 as a result of a Congressional budget increase for 

CONOPS development for the ER/MP UAS program. The Army subsequently deployed these assets to Iraq as a 

gap filler during the Hunter reconstitution. The I-Gnat-ER is slightly larger than the Gnat 750, has external hard 

points, an air-to-air data link ability, and more capable avionics. Two more unmanned aircraft were delivered in 

FY2005. These two unmanned aircraft have SATCOM data links and are equipped with the 17-inch Raytheon MTS 

sensor/designator system. This configuration is now referred to as “Warrior Alpha” (a preliminary version of the 

ER/MP Sky Warrior). Delivery of an additional 12 Warrior Alpha unmanned aircraft with SATCOM and SAR 

capability is planned for FY2006–07. The Army has had I-Gnat-ERs deployed to Iraq since March 2004. 

Characteristics: 

I-Gnat-ER 

Length 27 ft Wing Span 49 ft 

Gross Weight 2300 lb Payload Capacity 450 lb 

Fuel Capacity 625 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Rotax 914F Power 115 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS/SATCOM Frequency C-band 

Performance: 

Endurance 30 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 120/70 kt 

Ceiling 25,000 ft Radius 150 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Wescam MX-15 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 77 

A.1.13. Combat Medic UAS for Resupply and Evacuation 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: TBD Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The purpose of this research project is to design, develop, and demonstrate enabling technologies for 

delivery of medical supplies and Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) systems by UAS platforms to 

combat medics for treatment, stabilization, and subsequent evacuation of combat casualties from hostile situations. 

The key research foci are advanced technologies for (a) autonomous UAS takeoff, landing, and navigation in urban 

and wooded terrain and (b) collaboration and coordination between human combat medics and UAS ground 

controllers so that appropriate first responder care and evacuation can be performed during the so-called “golden 

hour” of combat casualty care. Five Phase I SBIR contracts were awarded in FY2007 in which notional concepts of 

operations will be developed as well as technical models that identify and translate functional requirements into 

implementable UAS system designs. Only limited technology demonstrations are envisioned in Phase I. Phase II 

down-select is tentatively scheduled for early FY2008. This phase includes the development and demonstration of 

prototypes that are expected to demonstrate the following tasks: (1) Navigate through urban or wooded terrain to a 

site of combat injury; (2) Select a suitable site for autonomous landing and takeoff with minimal human team 

member/operator guidance; (3) Safely land and take off autonomously; (4) Communicate with human medic team 

members; and (5) Carry a payload of medical supplies, including an LSTAT system, to the site of injury. This is 

currently a Joint (OSD-sponsored) SBIR effort being administered by the Army but in coordination with the Navy 

and Marine Corps. This concept involves a VTOL aircraft that can carry or ride on the ground on a ground 

CASEVAC vehicle. Both vehicles (air and ground) will be capable of either manned or unmanned operation. 

Characteristics: 

Combat Medic Unmanned Aircraft System for Resupply and Evacuation 

Length TBD Wing/Rotor Span TBD 

Gross Weight TBD Payload Capacity 500 lb threshold (1 LSTAT) / 

1000 lb objective (2 LSTATs) 

Fuel Capacity TBD Fuel Type TBD 

Engine Make TBD Power TBD 

Data Link(s) TBD Frequency TBD 

Performance: 

Endurance TBD Max/Loiter Speeds TBD/Hover 

Ceiling TBD Radius TBD 

Takeoff Means Hover Landing Means Hover 

Payloads Current: Medical supplies and 1–2 LSTATs 

Planned: CASEVAC UGV 

CASEVAC UAS 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 78 

A.1.14. RQ-15 Neptune 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: DRS Unmanned Technologies 

Inventory: 15 Delivered/75 Planned (25 systems) 

Status: POR 

Background: Neptune is a new tactical unmanned aircraft design optimized for at-sea L&R. Carried in a 

72′′ × 30′′ × 20′′ case that transforms into a pneumatic launcher, it can be launched from small vessels and recovered 

in open water. It can carry IR or color video sensors or can be used to drop small payloads. Its digital data link is 

designed to minimize multipath effects over water. First flight occurred in January 2002, and an initial production 

contract was awarded to DRS Unmanned Technologies in March 2002. 

Characteristics: 

RQ-15A 

Length 6 ft Wing Span 7 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 20 lb 

Fuel Capacity 18 lb Fuel Type MOGAS 

Engine Make 2 stroke Power 15 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 Frequency UHF 

 LOS video UHF 

Performance: 

Endurance 4 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 84/60 kt 

Ceiling 8000 ft Radius 40 nm 

Takeoff Means Pneumatic Landing Means Water/skid/parachute 

Sensor EO or IR Sensor Make DRS 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 79 

A.1.15. Maverick 

User Service: DARPA, Army, and Navy 

Manufacturer: Boeing, Frontier, and Robinson 

Inventory: 6 Delivered/6 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Maverick is an unmanned version of the Robinson R22 helicopter. Frontier modified it in 1999 to 

serve as a testbed for developing the control logic for their DARPA A-160 unmanned aircraft effort. Subsequently, 

the Navy decided to acquire four Mavericks in 2003.

Characteristics: 

Maverick 

Length 28.8 ft Rotorspan 25.2 ft 

Gross Weight 1370 lb Payload Capacity 400 lb 

Fuel Capacity 100 lb Fuel Type AVGAS 

Engine Make Lycoming 0-360-J2A Power 145 hp 

Data Link(s) TBD Frequency TBD 

Performance: 

Endurance 7 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 118/0 kt 

Ceiling 10,800 ft Radius 175 nm 

Takeoff Means Hover Landing Means Hover 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make Wescam 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 80 

A.1.16. A160 Hummingbird 

User Service: Army, Navy 

Manufacturer: Boeing 

Inventory: Turboshaft variant: 3 Delivered/8 Planned; Gasoline variant: 7 Delivered/0 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: A160 Hummingbird is a long endurance VTOL UAV using a revolutionary Optimum Speed Rotor 

(OSR), low drag configuration, and high fuel fraction to enable much longer endurance than conventional 

helicopters. In addition, it uses a stiff-in-plane rotor to enable fast reaction to gust loads.

Characteristics: 

A160 Hummingbird 

Length 35 ft Rotorspan 36 ft 

Gross Weight 5600 lb Payload Capacity 300–1000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 2700 lb Fuel Type JP 

Engine Make Pratt& Whitney PW207D Power 572 hp 

Data Link(s) Boeing Frequency Ku 

Performance: 

Endurance 10 hr at 500 nm with 300 lb Maximum/Loiter Speeds 140/60 kt 

Ceiling 15,000 ft hover; 

30,000 ft cruise 

Radius 500 nm 

Takeoff Means Hover or short taxi Landing Means Hover or ground roll 

Sensor (current) EO/IR Sensor Make WESCAM 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 81 

A.1.17. XPV-1 Tern 

User Service: SOCOM 

Manufacturer: BAI Aerosystems 

Inventory: 15 Delivered/15 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Originally, an Army testbed for a fiber optic guided unmanned aircraft, Tern was completely retooled 

in late 2001 to give it a larger, steerable nose gear and main gear fitted with tires suitable for rough terrain with 

electronically actuated disc brakes to aid short-field recovery that enabled the aircraft to carry a belly-mounted 

dispensing mechanism. Tern was operated in support of SOF by Navy personnel from Fleet Composite Squadron 

Six (VC-6, previously the Navy’s Pioneer Unmanned Aircraft Squadron) in Afghanistan to perform force protection 

missions and to dispense an unattended ground sensor weighing over 20 pounds. Over 225 combat hours were 

flown during two 3-month long deployments. In early 2004, a Tern variant was developed that eliminated the 

landing gear and incorporated skids and a tail-hook. A marinized control station was developed, and the system was 

successfully demonstrated onboard the USS Denver. The reduced drag of the skid/tailhook recovery system 

improved the vehicle’s mission endurance from 4 to over 6 hours. 

Characteristics: 

XPV-1 

Length 9.0 ft Wing Span 11.4 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 25 lb 

Fuel Capacity 28 lb Fuel Type MOGAS/oil 

Engine Make 3W 100 cc Power 12 hp 

Data Link(s) LOS C2 Frequency L/S-band 

 LOS video UHF 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 87/50 kt 

Ceiling 10,000 ft Radius 40 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO or IR Sensor Make BAI PTZ 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 82 

A.1.18. XPV-2 Mako 

User Service: SOCOM 

Manufacturer: NAVMAR Applied Sciences Corporation and BAI Aerosystems 

Inventory: 14 Delivered/14 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Mako is a lightweight, long-endurance, versatile unmanned aircraft capable of a variety of missions, 

yet of sufficiently low cost to be discarded after actual battle, if necessary. It is a single-engine, high-wing, radiocontrolled or computer-assisted autopilot unmanned aircraft capable of daylight or IR reconnaissance and other 

related missions. Although it is a relatively new aircraft, the recent modifications, which included the addition of 

navigation/strobe lights, a Mode C transponder, dual GCS operational capability, and a new high-resolution digital 

camera, made it a success during support to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Characteristics: 

XPV-2 

Length 9.11 ft Wing Span 12.8 ft 

Gross Weight 130 lb Payload Capacity 30 lb 

Fuel Capacity 5 gal Fuel Type MOGAS/oil 

Engine Make 3W 100cc Power 9.5 hp 

Data Link(s) C2 Frequency VHF/UHF 

Video L-band video downlink 

Performance: 

Endurance 8.5 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 75/50 kt 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Radius 40 NM 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make BAI 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 83 

A.1.19. Onyx Autonomously Guided Parafoil System 

User Service: Army (SOCOM) 

Manufacturer: Atair Aerospace, Inc. 

Inventory: 5 Delivered/5 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Onyx is an autonomously guided parafoil system developed by the Army 

Natick Soldier Center. Onyx systems are air-deployed from a C-130, C-141, or C-17 at 

up to 35,000 feet, autonomously glide over 30 miles, and land cargo within 150 feet of a 

target. Cargo for ground forces and SOF includes food and water, medical supplies, fuel, 

munitions, and other critical battlefield payloads. Onyx includes advanced capabilities 

such as flocking (formation flying), active collision avoidance, and adaptive control (selflearning functions). With this technology, multiple systems (50+) can be deployed in the 

same airspace and their payloads guided to one or multiple targets without possibility of 

midair collisions. Smaller versions have been developed to precisely deliver sensors or 

submunitions. 

Characteristics: 

Onyx 

Length 45 ft Wing Span 38 ft 

Gross Weight 2300 lb Payload Capacity 2200 lb 

Fuel Capacity N/A Fuel Type N/A 

Engine Make N/A Power N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance Varies Maximum/Loiter Speeds 0/70 kt 

Ceiling 35,000 ft Radius 30 nm 

Takeoff Means Airdrop Landing Means Parafoil 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 84 

A.1.20. Global Observer 

User Service: SOCOM, Army, Air Force, DHS, USCG 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 1 Subscale Prototype 

Status: NPOR; Prototype Flying (shown at right); Selected as 

a FY2007 Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) 

Background: Global Observer is a high-altitude endurance 

UAS using liquid hydrogen (LH2) as its fuel. Three variants 

are planned. Its subscale prototype (GO-0 “Odyssey”) made 

its first flight on 26 May 2005 at Yuma Proving Grounds and 

has flown several times since. It uses LH2 to power a full cell 

that runs eight electric motors and has a 50-foot wingspan. 

Global Observer 1 (GO-1), with a 175-foot wingspan and 

approximately 400 pounds of payload capability, is being built 

for a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. Its initial 

flight is planned in FY2009. It will use LH2 to power an 

internal combustion engine to run a generator to run four electric motors. Characteristics of the largest planned 

variant (GO-2) are listed below: 

Characteristics:

Global Observer-2 

Length 83ft Wing Span 259 ft 

Gross Weight 9098 lb Payload Capacity >1000 lb 

Fuel Capacity 2100 lb Fuel Type LH2 

Engine Number/Make Internal combustion/fuel cell Power 

Data Link(s) LOS/BLOS C2 Frequency Ku/Ka-band 

 LOS video UHF 

Performance:

Endurance 7+ days Maximum/Loiter Speeds 110 kt 

Ceiling 65,000 ft Radius 10,750 nm 

Takeoff Means Runway Landing Means Runway 

Payload EO/IR/radar/signals 

intelligence/communications 

Payload Make TBD 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 85 

A.1.21. RQ-14 Dragon Eye / Swift 

User Service: Marine Corps (Dragon Eye) and SOCOM (Swift) 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 194 Dragon Eye small unmanned aircraft systems 

(SUASs) Planned (3 aircraft per system)/33 Swift SUASs 

Planned (4 aircraft per system) 

Status: POR; Production Complete (both models) 

Background: The RQ-14A Dragon Eye fulfills the first tier of 

the Marine Corps Unmanned Aircraft Roadmap by providing the 

company/platoon/squad level with an organic reconnaissance, 

surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) capability out to 

2.5 nautical miles. The first prototype flew in May 2000 with 

low-rate production contracts (40 aircraft) awarded to 

AeroVironment and BAI Aerosystems in July 2001. In March 

2003, the Marine Corps awarded a production contract to 

AeroVironment following a user operational assessment. IOC was achieved in 2003. The Dragon Eye program has 

resulted in several variants. The RQ-14B Swift is a system composed of a Dragon Eye unmanned aircraft and a 

Raven GCS, Evolution is an export version by BAI, and Sea-All is an ONR initiative. 

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/factsheets/Dragon%20Eye%20Improvements.pdf

Characteristics: 

RQ-14A Dragon Eye RQ-14B Swift 

Weight 4.5 lb Weight 4.5 lb 

Length 2.4 ft Length 2.4 ft 

Wingspan 3.8 ft Wingspan 3.8 ft 

Payload Capacity 1 lb Payload Capacity 1 lb 

Engine Type Battery Engine Type Battery 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft 

Radius 2.5 nm Radius 2.5 nm 

Endurance 45–60 min Endurance 45–60 min 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 86 

A.1.22. Force Protection Aerial Surveillance System (FPASS) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin 

Inventory: 18 Systems Delivered/18 Systems 

Planned (96 total aircraft) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: FPASS is designed for ease of 

use by Air Force security personnel to improve 

situational awareness of the force protection 

battlespace by conducting area surveillance, 

patrolling base perimeters and runway approach 

and departure paths, and performing convoy 

overwatch. The Air Force Electronic Systems 

Center developed FPASS to address a 1999 

CENTCOM request for enhancing security at 

overseas bases. U.S. Central Command Air 

Force (CENTAF) refers to the FPASS vehicle as 

Desert Hawk. Each system consists of six 

aircraft and a laptop control station. Delivery of initial systems began in July 2002.

Characteristics:

FPASS (Desert Hawk) 

Weight 7 lb Payload Capacity 1 lb 

Length 2.7 ft Engine Type Battery 

Wingspan 4.3 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Endurance 1 hr 

Radius 6 nm Speed 30–50 kt 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 87 

A.1.23. Aqua / Terra Puma 

User Service: SOCOM and Army 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 6 Systems Planned (3 aircraft 

per system) 

Status: NPOR; Under Evaluation 

Background: Puma is an evolution of 

AeroVironment’s earlier Pointer handlaunched design and comes in two 

variants, Aqua Puma for use in a marine 

environment and Terra Puma for land use. 

It is under evaluation by the Army’s 

Natick Laboratory and is fielded with 

support for one year only at this time. 

Characteristics: 

Aqua/Terra Puma 

Weight 14 lb Payload Capacity 2–4 lb 

Length 5.9 ft Engine Type Battery 

Wingspan 8.5 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Endurance 2.5 hr 

Radius 6 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 88 

A.1.24. RQ-11 Pathfinder Raven 

User Service: Army, SOCOM, Air Force, and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 3333 Systems Planned (3 aircraft per system) 

Status: POR; In Production 

Background: Raven was developed in 2002 from the Flashlight SUAS and 

Pathfinder ACTD. In 2004, the Army introduced the RQ-11A Pathfinder 

Raven as an interim solution to an urgent need for unprecedented situational 

awareness and enhanced force protection at the maneuver battalion level 

and below. This earlier version has logged more than 22,000 hours in support to these units in the GWOT. In 2005, 

the SUAS became a POR and completed Milestone C on 6 October 2005. On 5 October 2006, the program entered 

full-rate production, and the RQ-11B is in the process of being fielded to active component BCTs. IOC was reached 

in 2006. It can either be remotely controlled from its ground station or fly completely autonomous missions using 

GPS. Standard mission payloads include charge-coupled device (CCD) color video or an IR camera. 

Characteristics: 

RQ-11 Raven 

Weight 4 lb Payload Capacity 1 lb 

Length 3.4 ft Engine Type Battery 

Wingspan 4.3 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 14,000 ft Endurance 1.5 hr 

Radius 6 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 89 

A.1.25. Silver Fox 

User Service: Navy, Marine Corps, Army, SOCOM 

Manufacturer: Advanced Ceramics Research (ACR) 

Inventory: 17 Systems Planned (54 total aircraft) 

Status: NPOR; Evaluation Complete 

Background: Silver Fox is a modular unmanned aircraft 

capable of running on either MOGAS or JP fuel. The ONR 

tested its utility for ship security and harbor patrol. It has 

demonstrated an endurance of 8 hours and control of four 

airborne aircraft simultaneously. Canada’s armed forces are 

acquiring a system for joint evaluation. 

Characteristics: 

Silver Fox 

Weight 20 lb Payload Capacity 5 lb 

Length 4.8 ft Engine Type Diesel/gasoline 

Wingspan 7.8 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 16,000 ft Endurance 10 hr 

Radius 20 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 90 

A.1.26. ScanEagle 

User Service: Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

Manufacturer: Insitu Group and Boeing 

Inventory: 2 Systems (8 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; Systems Under Lease 

Background: ScanEagle is a long-endurance SUAS. Six systems are deployed 

in Iraq to provide force protection under lease to the Marine Corps, seven are 

deployed on Navy ships, and two have been acquired by the Air Force. 

ScanEagle carries an inertially stabilized camera turret for EO/IR imagery. Its 

sensor data links have integrated cursor-on-target capability, which allows it to 

integrate operations with larger UASs such as Predator through the GCS. Its 

Skyhook (near-vertical recovery system) and pneumatic catapult launcher allow 

operations from ships or from remote, unimproved areas. ScanEagle has 

demonstrated an endurance of 28.7 hours. 

Characteristics: 

ScanEagle 

Weight 37.9 lb Payload Capacity 13.2 lb 

Length 3.9 ft Engine Type Gasoline 

Wingspan 10.2 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 16,400 ft Endurance 15 hr 

Radius 60 nm Maximum/Loiter Speeds 70/49 kt 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 91 

A.1.27. Aerosonde 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: AAI Corporation 

Inventory: 1 System Planned (5 to 8 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; System Under Lease 

Background: Aerosonde is a long-endurance (38 hour) SUAS. Aerosonde 

can carry a family of compact payloads including television cameras, 

IR cameras, ESM, or jammer electronics. Aerosonde is currently operating 

at NASA’s Wallops Island Flight Facility; at an arctic facility in Barrow, 

Alaska; and at two locations in Australia. The ONR purchased several 

aircraft along with services for instrument and payload development. 

Aerosonde flies from Guam under the Air Force Weather Scout Foreign Cooperative Test. 

Characteristics: 

Aerosonde 

Weight 33 lb Payload Capacity 12 lb 

Length 5.7 ft Engine Type Gasoline 

Wingspan 9.4 ft 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 20,000 ft Endurance 30 hr 

Radius 1000 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 92 

A.1.28. Buster 

User Service: SOCOM and Army 

Manufacturer: Mission Technologies 

Inventory: 5 Planned (4 aircraft per system) 

Status: NPOR; Under Evaluation 

Background: BUSTER is a SUAS on contract with the Army Night 

Vision Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is using BUSTER as a 

testbed for sensors. Nine systems are being delivered through the 

remainder of 2007. Other current contracts are with the U.K. Ministry of 

Defense Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP), with BUSTER 

training being conducted for the Royal Artillery, the Royal Air Force, and 

the SOF. 

Characteristics: 

Buster 

Weight 10 lb Payload Capacity 3.0 lb 

Length 41 in Engine Type Gasoline/JP-5 & JP-8 

Wingspan 49.5 in 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 10,000 ft Endurance 4+ hr 

Radius 6 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 93 

A.1.29. Small Tactical UAS (STUAS) / Tier II UAS 

User Service: Navy and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: Awaiting RFP Release 

Background: The STUAS/Tier II UAS program plans to enter the SDD phase of the acquisition process as an 

ACAT III program per SECNAVINST 5000.2C. STUAS/Tier II UAS is a new start program that will provide 

persistent ISR support for tactical-level maneuver decisions and unit-level force defense and force protection for 

Navy ships and Marine Corps land forces. This system will fill the ISR capability shortfalls identified by the Navy 

STUAS and Marine Corps Tier II UAS efforts and delineated in the JROC-approved Joint Tier II Initial Capabilities 

Document (ICD), which was validated in January 2007. This Joint ICD incorporates Marine Corps, Navy, Air 

Force, and SOCOM inputs identifying a joint capability gap set. Consisting of three air vehicles, one GCS, 

multimission (plug-and-play) payloads, and associated launch, recovery, and support equipment, this system will 

support Navy missions, including building the recognized maritime picture, maritime security operations, maritime 

interdiction operations, and support of Navy units operating from sea or shore. Marine Corps Tier II UAS will 

provide a small, organic, tactical ISR/Target Acquisition capability to the battalion/regimental/division/Marine 

Expeditionary Unit commander and enable enhanced decision making and improved integration with ground 

schemes of maneuver. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 94 

A.1.30. RQ-16A MAV 

User Service: DARPA and Army 

Manufacturer: Honeywell 

Inventory: 25 Systems Delivered/90 Systems Planned 

Status: POR; Under Evaluation 

Background: DARPA and the Army are exploring designs for MAV. The MAV is 

focused on a small system suitable for backpack deployment and single-person 

operation. Honeywell was awarded an agreement to develop and demonstrate the 

MAV as part of the MAV ACTD, which pushed the envelope in small, lightweight 

propulsion, sensing, and communication technologies. Following its military utility 

assessment in FY2005–06, 25 MAV systems are to transfer to the Army in FY2007. 

Based on the MAV ACTD, the Army has awarded an SDD contract to Honeywell 

for its FCS Class I UAS, and IOC is planned for 2015. http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/mavact.html

Characteristics: 

MAV 

Weight 15 lb Payload 2 lb 

Length 15 in Engine Type Heavy fuel piston 

Wingspan 13-in duct diameter 

Performance: 

Ceiling 10,500 ft Endurance ~40 min 

Radius ~6 nm 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 95 

A.1.31. Wasp 

User Service: Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

Manufacturer: AeroVironment 

Inventory: 56 (14 systems) Delivered/440 (135 systems) Planned 

Status: POR; Under Evaluation 

Background: DARPA’s Wasp MAV is a small, quiet, portable, reliable, 

and rugged unmanned air platform designed for front-line reconnaissance 

and surveillance over land or sea. Wasp serves as a reconnaissance 

platform for the company level and below by virtue of its extremely small 

size and quiet propulsion system. DARPA has developed both land and 

waterproofed versions of Wasp. The air vehicle’s operational range is 

typically 1 to 2 nautical miles, with a typical operational altitude of 

50 to 500 feet above ground level. Wasp’s GCS is common to the Raven, 

Pointer, and other small unmanned aircraft. Wasp is hand- or bungeelaunched. Prototypes are currently under extended evaluation in theater by the Marine Corps and Navy, flying from 

the USS Philippine Sea in theatre. The Air Force selected Wasp for its BATMAV program. 

Characteristics: 

Wasp Block II 

Weight 0.7 lb Payload 0.25 lb 

Length 11 in Engine Type Electric (battery) 

Wingspan 16 in 

Performance: 

Ceiling 10,000 ft Endurance 60 min 

Radius 1–2 nm Max/Loiter Speed 15–35 kt 

Sensor Two color video cameras Sensor Make 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 96 

A.1.32. Tactical Mini-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TACMAV) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Applied Research Associates (ARA) 

Inventory: Spiral 1 (6 systems)/Spiral 2 (78 systems) 

Status: NPOR

Background: In late 2004, the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) leveraged 

an Air Force contract to acquire the TACMAV. After an initial evaluation of six 

Spiral 1 systems, the REF purchased 78 additional TACMAV systems in support 

of OIF and OEF. The cost of each system is $36,000 for a total program cost of 

$3,024,000. The REF is no longer procuring the TACMAV. 

The TACMAV uses flexible wings, which fold around its fuselage, allowing 

the entire UAV to be stored in a 22-inch long, 5-inch diameter tube and 

carried in the user’s backpack. The TACMAV uses a payload pod containing 

two color Charge Couple Device cameras and a video transmitter. The user 

can select a forward- or side-looking camera. The GCU uses the standard Air 

Force Portable Flight Planning System interface for mission planning, inflight updates, and manual control. 

Platoon, squad, and fire team elements employed the TACMAV for real-time 

reconnaissance and surveillance support. Operational feedback was either neutral or negative. Soldiers complained 

about the poor image and lack of stability, grid coordinates, and IR capability. Use of the TACMAV is very 

dependent on weather conditions (wind). Following REF involvement, newer configurations made by ARA 

included an IR camera and longer flight time. 

Characteristics: 

TACMAV 

Weight 0.8 lb Payload Capacity 0.1 lb 

Length 19.7 in Engine Type Electric (Li battery) 

Wingspan 20.9 in 

Performance: 

Ceiling, MSL 11,000 ft MSL Endurance 25 min 

Radius 1.5 nm Max Airspeed 43 kt 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 97 

A.2. Unmanned Airship Systems 

A number of unmanned airship projects, both free-flying and tethered (aerostats), have been initiated to provide 

unmanned aircraft with synergistic capabilities, most notably extended persistence. Such airships are capable of 

endurances ranging from 5 days (RAID) to a month (JLENS) and primarily provide local area surveillance for 

defensive roles, such as force protection and cruise missile detection. A number of aerostats are now employed in 

the force protection role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychological operations (TARS) and border monitoring (TARS) 

are other niche roles in which airships can complement aircraft. There appears to be potential for synergy between 

airships and UASs that enhances capability or reduces cost in several mission applications including force 

protection, signals intelligence collection, communications relay, and navigation enhancement. The most significant 

challenge of airships appears to be their limited mobility. 

A.2.1. Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory (AAFL) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: American Blimp Corporation 

Inventory: 0 Delivered/1 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The AAFL will serve as a prototype testbed for improving 

the state of the art of airship systems technologies, ISR sensors, related 

processors, and communications networks. The initial airship systems to be 

developed and tested will be bow thrusters for slow speed control authority 

to reduce ground crew requirements; HFEs to increase efficiency, safety, 

and military operations interoperability; and automated flight controls to 

increase payload, altitude, and reduce flight operations costs. The AAFL will be equipped with dedicated hard 

points, equipment racks, high-bandwidth network interfaces, and 5 kilowatts of power for rapid integration to test a 

great variety of network-centric warfare payload options from a persistent ISR platform. 

Characteristics: 

AAFL 

Length 200 ft Tail Span 55 ft 

Volume 275,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 1000 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 48 hr Altitude 20,000 ft 

Sensor Various Sensor Make TBD 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 98 

A.2.2. Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: ILC Dover 

Inventory: 10 Delivered/10 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The primary mission of TARS is to provide lowlevel radar surveillance data in support of Federal agencies 

involved in the nation’s drug interdiction program. Its 

secondary mission is to provide North America Aerospace 

Defense Command with low-level surveillance coverage for air 

sovereignty in the Florida Straights. One aerostat, located at 

Cudjoe Key, Florida, transmits TV Marti, which sends American 

television signals to Cuba for the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. 

All radar data are transmitted to a ground station and then 

digitized and fed to the various users. Airborne time is generally limited by the weather to 60 percent operational 

availability; notwithstanding weather, aerostat and equipment availability averages more than 98 percent 

systemwide. For security and safety reasons, the airspace around Air Force aerostat sites is restricted for a radius of 

at least two to three statute miles and an altitude up to 15,000 feet. 

http://www2.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/tars.html

Characteristics: 

TARS 

Length 208 ft Tail Span 100 ft 

Volume 275,000/420,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 1200 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 10/30 days Altitude 12,000–15,000 ft 

Sensor Radar Sensor Make AN/TPS-63 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 99 

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

User Service: Joint (Army Lead) 

Manufacturer: Raytheon/TCOM 

Inventory: 12 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: JLENS is primarily intended to tackle the growing threat of 

cruise missiles to U.S. forces deployed abroad with radars to provide OTH 

surveillance. A JLENS system consists of two aerostats, one containing a 

surveillance radar (SuR) and one containing a precision track illumination radar 

(PTIR). Each aerostat is tethered to a mobile mooring station and attached to a 

processing station via a fiber optic/power tether. The SuR provides the initial 

target detection and then cueing to the PTIR, which generates a fire control 

quality track. The JLENS system is integrated into the joint tactical architecture via Link 16, cooperative 

engagement capability, single-channel ground and air radio system, and enhanced position location reporting 

system. Both radar systems will include identification, friend or foe interrogators. 

Characteristics: 

JLENS 

Length 233 ft Tail Span 75 ft 

Volume 590,000 ft3 Payload Capacity 5000 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 30 days Altitude 10,000–15,000 ft 

Sensor Radar Sensor Make Jasper 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 100 

A.2.4. Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Raytheon and TCOM 

Inventory: 3 Delivered/3 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Army initiated RAID to support Operations 

Enduring Freedom. Based on the JLENS missile detection and early 

warning platform, RAID is a smaller, tethered aerostat. Operating at 

an altitude of 1000 feet with a coverage footprint extending for 

several miles, RAID is performing area surveillance and force 

protection against small arms, mortar, and rocket attacks in 

Afghanistan. Although considerably smaller than the JLENS 

platform, the RAID experience in Afghanistan represents a valuable learning opportunity that should be useful to 

future tactical users of the JLENS. 

Characteristics: 

RAID 

Length 49 ft Tail Span 21 ft 

Volume 10,200 ft3 Payload Capacity 200 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 5 days Altitude 900+ ft 

Sensor EO/IR Sensor Make FSI Safire III 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 101 

A.2.5. Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform (REAP) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin and ISL-Bosch Aerospace 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/2 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: REAP was jointly developed by the ONR and the Army’s 

Material Command for use in Iraq. This 31-feet long aerostat is much smaller 

than the TARS and operates at only 300 feet above the battlefield. It is designed 

for rapid deployment (approximately 5 minutes) from the back of a highmobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle and carries daylight and night-vision 

cameras. Its sensors can sense out to 18 nautical miles from 300 feet. REAP 

deployed to Iraq in December 2003. 

Characteristics: 

REAP 

Length 31 ft Tail Span 17 ft 

Volume 2600 ft3 Payload Capacity 35 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 10 days Altitude 300 ft 

Sensor EO Sensor Make ISL Mark 1 

IR Raytheon IR 250 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 102 

A.2.6. Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS)

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin 

Inventory: 1 Delivered/7 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: PTDS is a tethered aerostat equipped with a highresolution EO/IR payload used with existing battlefield sensors to 

provide an automatic “slew to cue” capability. As a component of the 

persistent surveillance dissemination system of systems, it provides the 

ability to put “eyes on target” on enemy activity detected by an array of 

sensors. The Army developed and deployed PTDS as a quick reaction 

capability to Iraq in September 2004. On 31 August 2006, it awarded a 

contract to Lockheed Martin to build, field, operate, and sustain six additional baseline PTDSs that will be fielded 

during FY2007. In addition, modernization efforts are under way for the currently fielded system to enhance its 

capabilities beyond the baseline PTDS configuration. 

Characteristics: 

PTDS 

Length 114 ft Tail Span 36 ft 

Volume 64,000 ft Payload Capacity 500 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 25 days Altitude 5000 ft 

Sensor(s) EO/IR Sensor Model(s) MX-20 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 103 

A.3. UAS Airspace Integration19 

A.3.1. Overview 

The OSD vision is to have “File and Fly” access for appropriately equipped UASs by the end of 

2012 while maintaining an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) to aircraft with a pilot onboard. 

For military operations, UASs will operate with manned aircraft in civil airspace, including in 

and around airfields, using concepts of operation that make on- or off-board distinctions 

transparent to ATC authorities and airspace regulators. The operations tempo at mixed airfields 

will not be diminished by the integration of unmanned aviation. 

In the past, UASs were predominately operated by the DoD for combat operations in militarycontrolled airspace; however, there is a growing desire to employ UAS in support of homeland 

defense and civil authorities, e.g., DHS. To be effective, UASs will need routine access to the 

NAS outside of restricted and warning areas, both over land and over water. 

A.3.2. Background 

Because the current UASs do not have the same capabilities as manned aircraft to safely and 

efficiently integrate into the NAS, military UAS requirements to operate outside of restricted and 

warning areas are accommodated on a case-by-case basis. A process used to gain NAS access 

was jointly developed and agreed to by the DoD and FAA in 1999. Military operators of UASs 

are required to obtain a COA from the FAA. The process can take up to 60 days and, because 

UASs do not have an S&A capability, may require such additional and costly measures as 

providing chase planes and/or primary radar coverage. COAs are typically issued for a specific 

UAS, limited to specific routes or areas, and are valid for no more than one year. Exceptions are 

the National COA that was issued to the Air Force for Global Hawk operations in the NAS and 

the Disaster Relief COA that was issued to NORTHCOM’s Joint Force Air Component 

Commander for the Predator UAS. 

With a COA, the UAS is accommodated into the system when mission needs dictate; however, 

because the UAS lacks the ability to meet the same regulator requirements as a manned aircraft, 

it is frequently segregated from manned aviation rather than integrated with it, an exception 

being the integration of UASs flying on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans. As the DoD 

CONOPS for UASs matures and as we ensure the airworthiness of our UASs, we will look 

toward developing new procedures to gain access to the NAS. Toward that end, the DoD is 

working with the FAA to refine and/or replace the COA process to enable more ready access to 

the NAS for qualified UASs. 

From the DoD perspective, three critical issues must be addressed in order to supplant the COA 

process: UAS reliability, FAA regulations, and an S&A capability. Each is discussed here. 

OSD and FAA, working through the DoD Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA), are 

engaged in establishing the air traffic regulatory infrastructure for integrating military UASs into 

the NAS. By limiting this effort’s focus to traffic management of domestic flight operations by 

military UASs, the hope is to establish a solid precedent that can be extended to other public and 

civil UASs domestically and to civil and military flights in international and non-U.S. airspace. 

 

19 OSD Airspace Integration Plan for Unmanned Aviation, November 2004, provides a more comprehensive 

discussion of this topic. It is the source of much of the information contained in this appendix. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 104 

As depicted in Figure A.1, this initiative (shown by the lower-left block in the figure) is intended 

to serve as the first brick in the larger, interwoven wall of regulations governing worldwide 

aviation. Precepts include the following: 

3⁄4 Do no harm. Avoid new initiatives, e.g., enacting regulations for the military user that 

would adversely impact the Military Departments’ right to self-certify aircraft and aircrews, 

ATC practices or procedures, or manned aviation CONOPS or TTPs or that would 

unnecessarily restrict civilian or commercial flights. Where feasible, leave “hooks” in place 

to facilitate the adaptation of these regulations for civil use. This also applies to recognizing 

that “one size does NOT fit all” when it comes to establishing regulations for the wide range 

in size and performance of DoD UASs. 

3⁄4 Conform rather than create. Apply the existing Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) (formerly known as Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs) to also cover unmanned 

aviation and avoid the creation of dedicated UAS regulations as much as possible. The goal 

is to achieve transparent flight operations in the NAS. 

3⁄4 Establish the precedent. Although focused on domestic use, any regulations enacted will 

likely lead, or certainly have to conform to, similar regulations governing UAS flight in 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and foreign domestic (specific countries’) 

airspace. 

Figure A.1 Joint FAA/OSD Approach to Regulating UASs 

Before the vision of “file and fly” can occur, significant work must be accomplished in the 

mutually dependent areas of UAS reliability, regulation, and an S&A capability. 

A.3.2.1. Reliability 

UAS reliability is the first hurdle in airspace considerations because it underlies UAS acceptance 

into civil airspace—whether domestic, international, or foreign. Historically, UASs have 

suffered mishaps at one to two orders of magnitude greater than the rate (per 100,000 hours) 

incurred by manned military aircraft. In recent years, however, flight experience and improved 

technologies have enabled UASs to continue to track the reliability of early manned military 

aircraft with their reliability approaching an equivalent level of reliability to their manned 

UAS Flight in

Foreign Airspace

UAS Flight in 

International Airspace

Civil UAS

Airworthiness

Civil UAS

Traffic Ops

Civil UAS

Crew Qualifications

Public UAS

Crew Qualifications

Public UAS

Airworthiness

Public UAS

Traffic Ops
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 105 

military counterparts (see Figure A.2). Further improvements in reliability will be seen as 

airworthiness teams develop rigorous standards, and greater redundancy is designed into the 

systems, e.g., the MQ-1C Sky Warrior and MQ-9A Reaper flight management systems. 

Reaper

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Cumulative Flight Hours

Class A or B Mishaps per 100,000 Hours

Pioneer

U-2

Global 

Hawk

Hunter

Predator

F-16

Shadow

I-Gnat

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

A.3.2.2. Regulation 

A.3.2.2.1. Air Traffic Operations 

The FAA’s air traffic regulations are meant to ensure the multitude of aircraft flown in the NAS 

are operated safely and pose a minimal hazard to people or property on the ground or in the air. 

FAA’s air traffic management focus is on the day-to-day operation of the system and the safe, 

expeditious movement of air traffic. Aircraft are separated by time, altitude, and lateral distance. 

Additionally, classes of airspace are established that include specific requirements for aircraft 

equipage, pilot qualifications, and flight plan filing. Regardless of the class of airspace in which 

aircraft are operating, pilots are required to S&A other air traffic. This requirement exists even 

when ground controllers provide traffic advisories or when an onboard collision avoidance 

system, such as the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), is required. S&A is 

a key issue in allowing UASs into civil airspace and is discussed in detail in A.3.2.3. 

Six classes of airspace are defined in the United States, each requiring varying levels of user 

performance (aircrew/aircraft). Aircraft are controlled to varying degrees by the ATC 

infrastructure in the different classes of airspace. Because these classes are referenced 

throughout this discussion, a brief description is useful. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 106 

3⁄4 Class A airspace exists from Flight Level (FL) 180 (18,000 feet MSL) to FL600 (60,000 feet 

MSL). Flights within Class A airspace must be under IFR and under the control of ATC at 

all times. 

3⁄4 Class B airspace generally surrounds major airports (generally up to 10,000 feet MSL) to 

reduce mid-air collision potential by requiring ATC control of IFR and Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) flights in that airspace. 

3⁄4 Class C airspace surrounds busy airports (generally up to 4000 feet AGL) that do not need 

Class B airspace protection and requires flights to establish and maintain two-way 

communications with ATC while in that airspace. ATC provides radar separation service to 

flights in Class C airspace. 

3⁄4 Class D airspace surrounds airports (generally up to 2500 feet AGL) that have an operating 

control tower. Flights in Class D airspace must establish and maintain communications with 

ATC, but VFR flights do not receive separation service. 

3⁄4 Class E airspace is all other airspace in which IFR and VFR flights are allowed. Although 

Class E airspace can extend to the surface, it generally begins at 1200 feet AGL, or 

14,500 feet MSL, and extends upward until it meets a higher class of airspace (A–D). It is 

also above FL600. 

3⁄4 Class G airspace (there is no Class F airspace in the United States) is also called 

“uncontrolled airspace” because ATC does not control aircraft there. (ATC will provide 

advisories upon request, workload dependent.) Class G airspace can extend to 14,499 feet 

MSL, but generally exists below 1200 feet AGL and below Class E airspace. 

Accordingly, Classes B, C, and D relate to airspace surrounding airports (terminal airspace) 

where increased mid-air collision potential exists; Classes A, E, and G primarily relate to altitude 

and the nature of flight operations that commonly occur at those altitudes (en route airspace). 

ATC provides separation services and/or advisories to all flights in Classes A, B, and C. They 

provide it to some flights in Class E, and do not provide service in Class G. Regardless of the 

class of airspace, or whether ATC provides separation services, pilots are required to S&A other 

aircraft during all conditions. Figure A.3 depicts this airspace with representative UASs and 

their anticipated operating altitude. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 107 

Figure A.3 UASs and Airspace Classes of the NAS20

It is clear that some taxonomy for UASs is needed to define their operating privileges, 

airworthiness standards, operator training and certification requirements, and place in the rightof-way rules. Although public (e.g., U.S. military) aircraft are to some degree exempt from a 

number of FAA regulations such as airworthiness and pilot certification, certain responsibilities 

still exist. 

3⁄4 Meeting equivalent airworthiness and operator qualification standards to operate in the NAS, 

3⁄4 Conforming to FAA traffic regulations (S&A, lighting, yielding right-of-way) when 

operating outside of restricted airspace, and 

3⁄4 Complying with international (oceanic and foreign domestic) regulations when transiting that 

airspace, regulations which often take those of the FAA as precedents. 

Military UASs with a need to routinely operate outside of restricted airspace or in international 

airspace must, therefore, make themselves transparent to air traffic management authorities. In 

large part, this means conforming by waiver to 14 CFR 91 for the larger UASs, such as the Air 

Force’s Global Hawk and Predator. This plan calls for these UASs (Cat III) to be treated 

similarly to manned aircraft. 

The FAA has approved a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category in the regulations and does not 

require either airworthiness or pilot certification (similar to Part 103 aircraft) for certain uses and 

limited operations. These aircraft achieve an equivalent level of safety to certificated aircraft 

 

20 The FAA is moving toward a two-class structure for the NAS, “terminal” and “en route.” Terminal will subsume 

Class B, C, and D airspace, and en route will include Class A, E, and G airspace. 

Class G SFC - 700 ’ or 1,200

 

Class 

A

Class E

Class D

- 2,5000 ’ MS

L

Class B

SFC - 10,000 ’ MSL

Class C

SFC - 4,000 ’ MSL

Class E

Class G Airspace SFC – 700’ or 1,200’ AGL 

60,000 ft MSL

18,000 ft MSL

Class E

Operating Rules-IFR

Pilot/ Equipment

Requirements are 

IAW 14 CFR 

91.167-91.193

Global Hawk

Reaper

Hunter

Shadow

I-GNAT Predator

Fire Scout 

Class C

SFC - 4,000’ AGL

ER/MP Federal Airways 

(Class E) 

1,200’ AGL– 17,999’ MSL

Jet Routes 

(Class A) 

FL180 – FL 450

45,000 ft MSL

Class G

SFC – 14,500’ MSL

Class E

Class D

SFC - 2,500’ AGL

Class B

SFC - 10,000’ MSL

Class A BAMS
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 108 

with a slightly lower level of reliability. There are also many restricted category aircraft that 

perform special purpose operations. A number of U.S. military UASs (e.g., Army’s RQ-7 

Shadow and MQ-5 Hunter) share similar characteristics and performance. This plan calls for 

these UASs (Cat II) to be treated similarly to ultralights, LSA, or restricted category aircraft. 

As a final case with application to UASs, the FAA has chosen not to explicitly regulate certain 

other aircraft, such as model rockets, fireworks, and radio-controlled (RC) model aircraft. 

14 CFR 101 specifically exempts smaller balloons, rockets, and kites from the regulation; and 

AC 91-57 addresses RC model airplanes, but is advisory only. These systems are omitted from 

the regulations. All three military departments currently employ UASs in the same size, weight, 

and performance regimes as those of RC models (e.g., Raven for the Army, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps). This plan calls for small UASs similar to RC model aircraft (and operated 

similarly) (UAS (Cat I )) to be treated similarly to RC model aircraft. This discussion provides 

divisions, based on the existing regulatory FAA infrastructure, into which all current military 

UASs can be placed and is depicted with example UAS types in Table A.1. 

Table A.1 Alignment of UAS Categories with FAA Regulations 

Certified Aircraft / 

UAS (Cat III ) 

Nonstandard Aircraft / 

UAS (Cat II) 

RC Model Aircraft 

/ UAS (Cat I) 

FAA Regulation 14 CFR 91 14 CFR 91, 101, and 103 None (AC 91-57) 

Airspace Usage All Class E, G, & 

non-joint-use Class D 

Class G 

(<1200 ft AGL) 

Airspeed Limit, KIAS None NTE 250 (proposed) 100 (proposed) 

Example Types Manned Airliners Light-Sport None 

Unmanned Predator, Global Hawk Shadow Dragon Eye, Raven 

The terms within Table A.1 are further defined below. 

3⁄4 UAS (Cat III). Capable of flying throughout all categories of airspace and conforms to 

Part 91 (i.e., all the things a regulated manned aircraft must do including the ability to S&A). 

Airworthiness certification and operator qualification are required. UASs are generally built 

for beyond LOS operations. Examples: Global Hawk, Predator 

3⁄4 UAS (Cat II). Nonstandard aircraft that perform special purpose operations. Operators must 

provide evidence of airworthiness and operator qualification. Cat II UASs may perform 

routine operations within a specific set of restrictions. Example: Shadow 

3⁄4 UAS (Cat I). Analogous to RC models as covered in AC 91-57. Operators must provide 

evidence of airworthiness and operator qualification. Small UASs are generally limited to 

visual LOS operations. Examples: Raven, Dragon Eye 

The JUAS COE has since further divided these three categories into six categories, as shown in 

Figure A.4. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 109 

Current System Attributes 

JUAS 

Categories Operational 

Altitude (ft) 

Typical 

Payload 

Launch 

Method Weight (lbs) Airspeed (kts) 

Endurance 

(hrs) Radius (nm) 

Current Systems 

(Projected by 

2014) 

T1 - Tactical 1 

Special 

Operations 

Forces (SOF) 

Team 

Small Unit 

Company & 

below

≤ 1,000 Hand 

launched ≤ 20 ≤ 60 < 4 < 10 

Hornet, BATCAM, 

Raven, Dragon 

Eye, FPASS, 

Pointer, Wasp, 

BUSTER (raillaunched), MAV 

T2 - Tactical 2 

Battalion/Brigade 

Regiment 

SOF Group/Flight

≤ 5,000 

Primarily 

EO/IR 

or Comm 

 Relay 

Mobile 

launched 20 - 450 ≤ 100 < 24 < 100 

Neptune, Tern, 

Mako, OAV-II,

Shadow, Silver Fox, 

ScanEagle, 

Aerosonde 

≤ 10,000 

Conventional 

or Vertical 

Take-off and 

Landing 

(VTOL) 

450 – 5,000 ≤ 250 

Maverick, Pioneer, 

Hunter, Snow 

Goose, I-Gnat-ER, 

ER/MP, Dragonfly, 

Eagle Eye,

Firescout, BAMS, 

Hummingbird, Onyx

T3 - Tactical 3 

Division/Corps 

MEF/Squadron/S

trike Group

O - Operational 

JTF

≤ 40,000 

Above, 

plus SAR, 

SIGINT, 

Moving 

Target 

Indicator 

(MTI), 

or WPNS 

≤ 15,000 

< 2,000 

Predator, N-UCAS, 

Reaper 

S - Strategic 

National > 40,000 

Above, 

plus 

RADAR 

Conventional

> 15,000 

> 250 

< 36 

Theater 

wide Global Hawk 

Note: This chart is meant to be evolutionary in nature. It reflects current capability/technology and is likely to evolve. As an example, although not a 

separate JUAS category, airships are recognized as having capabilities and attributes similar to other UAS. As their utility becomes more operational, 

they will be included in appropriate JUAS categories. The data presented represents typical parameters for the systems that fall in each category; 

there are several exceptions. 

 - Operational Altitude: The normal altitude range for systems based on payload capabilities, airspace management requirements, & aircraft 

capabilities 

 - Endurance: Includes the time from launch to recovery, based on single aircraft capability without refueling 

 - Radius: The radial distance from a launch site to the operating area, limited by C2 linkage and/or endurance and desired time on station 

 - Exceptions: Aerosonde endurance - 30 hrs; radius - 1,000 nm; Silver Fox airspeed - 105 kts; Predator airspeed - 118 kts; N-UCAS weight - 46,000 

lbs 

 - UA operating within an operational theater must comply with existing ACO / SPINS 

 - Airspeed: 250 kts is the upper airspeed limit for operations below 10,000 ft MSL 

 - Weight: 1,320 lbs is the upper MGTOW limit for FAA light sport aircraft, 12,500 is the upper limit for normal, utility, and acrobatic aircraft 

 - Altitude: -- 1,200 ft AGL is upper altitude limit for Class G uncontrolled airspace 

 -- 3,000 ft AGL is the lower limit for VFR en-route altitudes 

 -- 18,000 ft MSL is the lower altitude limit of Class A airspace, (Predator is an exception as it operates above 18,000 ft.) 

 - Design: FAA standards also vary for winged aircraft, rotorcraft, and airships 

Figure A.4 JUAS COE’s Categories for UASs
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 110 

Current System Attributes Domestic 

Use UAS 

Levels Airspeed 

(kts) Weight (lbs) Operating Altitude (ft) 

Current Systems 

(Projected by 2014) Description UAS Examples

Level 0 ≤ 2 ≤ 1,200 Hornet, BATCAM, 

Wasp 

Systems under 2 lbs, 

within LOS control, 

operating in 

unregulated airspace 

Level 1 2 - 20 ≤ 3,000 

Raven, Dragon Eye, 

FPASS, Pointer, BUSTER, 

MAV 

Systems under 20 lbs, 

operating below VFR 

airspace

Level 2 21 – 1,320 

Silver Fox, FINDER, 

Aerosonde, MARTS 

ScanEagle, Neptune, 

OAV-II, Tern, Mako, 

Shadow, Pioneer, REAP, 

RAID, TARS, JLENS, Killer 

Bee 

Systems under 1,320 

lbs fall under light 

sport aircraft 

standards 

Level 3

≤ 250 

1,321 – 

12,500 

Maverick, Snow Goose, 

Dragonfly, Hunter A, 

Hunter B, Onyx, I-Gnat-ER, 

Eagle Eye, ER/MP, 

Firescout, BAMS, 

Hummingbird, Predator 

Systems over 1,320 

lbs, operating below 

Class A airspace 

Level 4 > 250 ≤ 12,500 

< 18,000 

Currently no DOD UAS fall 

in this category. Example 

system is Killer Bee 

concept UAS 

Systems operating 

below 10,000 ft MSL 

with max airspeeds 

that exceed the limit 

of 250 kts 

Level 5 Any > 12,500 ≥ 18,000 Reaper, Global Hawk 

N-UCAS, HAA, NSMV

Systems operating at 

or above 18,000 ft 

MSL fall under Class 

A airspace standards 

Note: This chart is meant to be evolutionary in nature. It reflects current capability/technology and is likely to evolve. As an example, although not a 

separate JUAS category, airships are recognized as having capabilities and attributes similar to other UAS. As their utility becomes more operational, 

they will be included in appropriate JUAS categories. The data presented represents typical parameters for the systems that fall in each category; there 

are several exceptions. 

 - Operational Altitude: The normal altitude range for systems based on payload capabilities, airspace management requirements, & aircraft 

capabilities 

 - Endurance: Includes the time from launch to recovery, based on single aircraft capability without refueling 

 - Radius: The radial distance from a launch site to the operating area, limited by C2 linkage and/or endurance and desired time on station 

 - Exceptions: Aerosonde endurance - 30 hrs; radius - 1,000 nm; Silver Fox airspeed - 105 kts; Predator airspeed - 118 kts; N-UCAS weight - 46,000 

lbs 

 - UA operating within an operational theater must comply with existing ACO / SPINS 

 - Airspeed: 250 kts is the upper airspeed limit for operations below 10,000 ft MSL 

 - Weight: 1,320 lbs is the upper MGTOW limit for FAA light sport aircraft, 12,500 is the upper limit for normal, utility, and acrobatic aircraft 

 - Altitude: -- 1,200 ft AGL is upper altitude limit for Class G uncontrolled airspace 

 -- 3,000 ft AGL is the lower limit for VFR en-route altitudes 

 -- 18,000 ft MSL is the lower altitude limit of Class A airspace, (Predator is an exception as it operates above 18,000 ft.) 

 - Design: FAA standards also vary for winged aircraft, rotorcraft, and airships

BATCAM 

Raven 

Scan Eagle 

Shadow 

Hunter 

Killer 

Bee 

MQ-1/Predator 

RQ-4/Global Hawk 

Figure A.4 JUAS COE’s Categories for UASs (continued) 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 111 

It is important to note that the FAA uses the term “category” in two different ways (14 CFR 1). 

As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, the term 

“category” means a broad classification of aircraft. Examples include airplane, rotorcraft, glider, 

and lighter-than-air. As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, the term “category” 

means a grouping of aircraft based upon intended use or operating limitations. Examples include 

transport, normal, utility, acrobatic, limited, restricted, and provisional. When discussing rightof-way rules in 14 CFR 91.113, however, the FAA uses nonmutually exclusive categories such 

as balloon, glider, airship, airplane, rotorcraft, and engine-driven aircraft for determining which 

flight has the right of way. 14 CFR 103 requires ultralights to yield the right of way to all other 

manned aircraft. Similarly, the FAA provides avoidance (right-of-way) advice for RC model 

aircraft in an Advisory Circular. 

It is envisioned, then, that UASs could be assigned their own category in order to facilitate the 

development of regulations for air operations, airworthiness, operator certification, and right-ofway rules. The UAS category may be exclusive of certain UASs in the same way that model 

airplanes are omitted from current regulations; and some UASs may be regulated separately, as 

ultralights, light-sport, or restricted category aircraft are currently. 

In addition to regulatory changes necessary for routine operation of military UASs in civil 

airspace, changes to several other documents, such as Advisory Circulars and FAA Joint Order 

7610.4M (Special Operations), will be required. 

A.3.2.2.2. Airworthiness Certification 

The FAA’s airworthiness regulations are meant to ensure that aircraft are built and maintained to 

minimize their hazard to aircrew, passengers, and people and property on the ground. 

Airworthiness is concerned with the material and construction integrity of the individual aircraft 

and the prevention of the aircraft’s coming apart in mid-air and/or causing damage to persons or 

property on the ground. Over the 19-year period from 1982 to 2000, an annual average of 

2.2 percent of all aviation fatalities involved people being hit by parts falling off aircraft. A UAS 

that must be available for unrestricted operations worldwide (e.g., Global Hawk) in most classes 

of airspace compels serious consideration for the safety of people on the ground. The 

operational requirements for UAS operation in civil airspace means flight over populated areas 

must not raise concerns based on overall levels of airworthiness; therefore, UAS standards 

cannot vary widely from those for manned aircraft without raising public and regulatory concern. 

FAA regulations do not require “public aircraft” (government-owned or -operated) to be certified 

airworthy to FAA standards. Most nonmilitary public aircraft are versions of aircraft previously 

certified for commercial or private use; however, the only public aircraft not related to FAA 

certification standards in some way are almost always military aircraft. These aircraft are 

certified through the military’s internal airworthiness certification/flight release process. A 

Tri-Service memorandum of agreement describes the responsibilities and actions associated with 

mutual acceptance of airworthiness certifications for manned aircraft and UASs within the same 

certified design configuration, envelope, parameters, and usage limits certified by the originating 

Military Department. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 112 

Similarly to manned military aircraft, unmanned military aircraft will also be subject to the 

airworthiness certification/flight release process. The Global Hawk has completed this process 

and has been granted an airworthiness certificate. 

A.3.2.2.3. Crew Qualifications 

The FAA’s qualification standards (14 CFR 61, 63, 65, and 67) are meant to ensure the 

competency of aircrew and aircraft maintainers. As in the case of airworthiness certification, 

these CFR parts do not pertain to military personnel who are certified in a similar, parallel 

process. DoD and FAA have signed a memorandum of agreement through which DoD agrees to 

meet or exceed civil training standards, and the FAA agrees to accept military-rated pilots into 

the NAS. These factors indicate that a certain minimum knowledge standard is required of all 

pilots-in-command in order to operate aircraft in the NAS. In order to meet the intent of “do no 

harm,” training for Cat III aircraft would include, but not be limited to, regulations, airspace 

clearances and restrictions, aircraft flight rules, air traffic communications, aircraft sequencing 

and prioritization, takeoff and landing procedures for combined manned and unmanned 

operations, go-around and abort procedures, flight planning and filing (including in-flight filing), 

flight and communications procedures for lost link, weather reporting and avoidance, ground 

operations for combined manned and unmanned operations, flight speed and altitude restrictions, 

and, when applicable, weapons carriage procedures (including hung ordinance flight 

restrictions). 

Under the international doctrine for public aircraft, the FAA does not have to agree with DoD 

training or accept military ratings; the Military Departments are entitled to make these judgments 

independently. Each Military Department identifies what and how it will operate and create the 

training programs necessary to safely accomplish its missions. Some of the UAS-related training 

is a fundamental shift away from the skills needed to fly a manned aircraft (e.g., ground-based 

visual landing). These differences can relate to the means of landing: visual remote, aided 

visual, or fully autonomous. They may also relate to different interface designs for the UAS 

functions or the level of control needed to exercise authority over an aircraft based on its 

autonomous capability. As a result, the Military Departments will have minimum standards for 

knowledge skills required of UAS operators operating in the NAS; this minimum standard may 

differ for given classes of UAS. UAS operators21 will be expected to conform to these 

requirements. 

A.3.2.3. “Sense and Avoid” (S&A) Principle 

A key requirement for routine access to the NAS is UAS compliance with 14 CFR 91.113, 

“Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations.” This section contains the phrase “sense and 

avoid” and is the primary restriction to normal operations of UASs. The intent of “sense and 

avoid” is for pilots to use their sensors (eyes) and other tools to find and maintain situational 

awareness of other traffic and to yield the right-of-way, in accordance with the rules, when there 

is a traffic conflict. Since the purpose of this regulation is to avoid mid-air collisions, this should 

be the focus of technological efforts to address the issue as it relates to UAS rather than trying to 

mimic and/or duplicate human vision. In June 2003, USAF’s Air Combat Command (ACC) 

sponsored a joint working group to establish and quantify an S&A system capability for 

 

21 NOTE: UAS operators may, or may not, be “rated pilots.” For the OSD Airspace Integration Plan, “operator” is 

the generic term to describe the individual with the appropriate training and Service certification for the type of UAS 

being operated and, as such, is responsible for the aircraft’s operations and safety. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 113 

submission to the FAA. Their white paper, “See and Avoid Requirement for Remotely Operated 

Aircraft,” was released in June 2004. 

Relying simply on human vision results in mid-air collisions accounting for an average of 

0.8 percent of all mishaps and 2.4 percent of all aviation fatalities incurring annually (based on 

the 3-year average from 1998 to 2000).22 Meaningful S&A performance must alert the UAS 

operator to local air traffic at ranges sufficient for reaction time and avoidance actions by safe 

margins. Furthermore, UAS operations BLOS may require an automated S&A system due to 

potential communications latencies or failures. 

The FAA does not provide a quantitative definition of S&A, largely due to the number of 

combinations of pilot vision, collision vectors, sky background, and aircraft paint schemes 

involved in seeing oncoming traffic. Having a sufficient field of regard for a UAS S&A system, 

however, is fundamental to meeting the goal of assured air traffic separation. 

Although an elusive issue, one fact is apparent. The challenge with the S&A issue is both a 

capability constraint and a regulatory one. Given the discussions in this and other analyses, a 

possible definition for S&A systems emerges: S&A is the onboard, self-contained ability to 

3⁄4 Detect traffic that may be a conflict, 

3⁄4 Evaluate flight paths, 

3⁄4 Determine traffic right of way, and 

3⁄4 Maneuver well clear according to the rules in Part 91.113. 

The key to providing the “equivalent level of safety” required by FAA Order 7610.4M, “Special 

Operations,” Chapter 12, Section 9, “UAS Operations in the NAS,” is the provision of some 

comparable means of S&A to that provided by pilots on board manned aircraft. The purpose of 

S&A is to avoid mid-air collisions, and this should be the focus of technological efforts to 

automate this capability, rather than trying to mechanize human vision. 

From a technical perspective, the S&A capability can be divided into the detection of oncoming 

traffic and the execution of a maneuver to avoid a mid-air collision. The detection aspect can be 

further subdivided into passive or active techniques applicable in cooperative or noncooperative 

traffic environments. 

The active cooperative scenario involves an interrogator monitoring a sector ahead of the UAS to 

detect oncoming traffic by interrogating the transponder on the other aircraft. Its advantages are 

that it provides both range and bearing to the traffic and can function in both visual and 

instrument meteorological conditions (VMC and IMC). Its disadvantages are its relative cost. 

Current systems available in this category include the various TCASs. 

The active noncooperative scenario relies on a radar- or laser-like sensor scanning a sector ahead 

of the UAS to detect all traffic, whether transponder-equipped or not. The returned signal 

provides range, bearing, and closure rate and allows prioritization of oncoming traffic for 

avoidance, in either VMC or IMC. Its potential drawbacks are its relative cost, the bandwidth 

requirement to route its imagery (for nonautonomous systems), and its weight. An example of 

 

22 National Transportation Safety Board aviation statistics. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 114 

an active, noncooperative system that is currently available is a combined microwave radar and 

infrared sensor originally developed to enable helicopters to avoid power lines. 

The passive cooperative scenario, like the active cooperative one, relies on everyone having a 

transponder, but with everyone’s transponder broadcasting position, altitude, and velocity data. 

Its advantages are its lower relative cost (no onboard interrogator required to activate 

transponders) and its ability to provide S&A information in both VMC and IMC. Its 

disadvantage is its dependence on all traffic carrying and continuously operating transponders. 

In this scenario, UASs should have the capability to change transponder settings while in flight. 

The passive noncooperative scenario is the most demanding one. It is also the most analogous to 

the human eye. An S&A system in this scenario relies on a sensor to detect and provide azimuth 

and elevation to the oncoming traffic. Its advantages are its moderate relative cost and ability to 

detect non-transponder-equipped traffic. Its disadvantages are its lack of direct range or closure 

rate information, potentially high bandwidth requirement (if not autonomous), and its probable 

inability to penetrate weather. The gimbaled EO/IR sensors currently carried by reconnaissance 

UASs are examples of such systems; however, if they are looking at the ground for 

reconnaissance, then they are not available to perform S&A. An emerging approach that would 

negate the high bandwidth requirement of any active system is optical flow technology, which 

reports only when it detects an object showing a lack of movement against the sky, instead of 

sending a continuous video stream to the ground controller. Imagery from one or more 

inexpensive optical sensors on the UAS is continuously compared to the last image by an 

onboard processor to detect minute changes in pixels, indicating traffic of potential interest. 

Only when such objects are detected is their bearing relayed to the ground. 

Once the “detect and sense” portion of S&A is satisfied, the UAS must use this information to 

execute an avoidance maneuver. The latency between seeing and avoiding for the pilot of a 

manned aircraft ranges from 10 to 12.5 seconds according to FAA and DoD studies.23 If relying 

on a ground operator to S&A, the UAS incurs the same human latency, but adds the latency of 

the data link bringing the image to the ground for a decision and the avoidance command back to 

the UAS. This added latency can range from less than a second for LOS links to more time for 

satellite links. 

An alternative is to empower the UAS to autonomously decide whether and which way to react 

to avoid a collision once it detects oncoming traffic, thereby removing the latency imposed by 

data links. This approach has been considered for implementation on TCAS II-equipped manned 

aircraft since TCAS II already recommends a vertical direction to the pilot, but simulations have 

found the automated maneuver worsens the situation in a fraction of the scenarios. For this 

reason, the FAA has not certified automated collision avoidance algorithms based on TCAS 

resolution advisories; doing so would set a significant precedent for UAS S&A capabilities. 

The long-term FAA plan is “to move away from infrastructure-based systems towards a more 

autonomous, aircraft-based system” for collision avoidance.24 Installation of TCAS is increasing 

across the aviation community, and TCAS functionality supports increased operator autonomy. 

Research and testing of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) may afford an 

 

23 Tyndall Air Force Base Mid-Air Collision Avoidance Study; FAA P-8740-51; see also Krause, Avoiding Mid-Air 

Collisions, p. 13. 24 2001 Federal Radionavigation Systems Plan.
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 115 

even greater capability and affirms the intent of the aviation community to support and continue 

down this path. Such equipment complements basic S&A, adds to the situational awareness, and 

helps provide separation from close traffic in all meteorological conditions. 

A.3.3. Command, Control, Communications 

A.3.3.1. Data Link Security 

In general, there are two main areas of concern when considering link security: inadvertent or 

hostile interference of the uplink and downlink. The forward (“up”) link controls the activities of 

the platform itself and the payload hardware. This command and control link requires a 

sufficient degree of security to ensure that only authorized agents have access to the control 

mechanisms of the platform. The return (“down”) link transmits critical data from the platform 

payload to the warfighter or analyst on the ground or in the air. System health and status 

information must also be delivered to the GCS or UAS operator without compromise. Effective 

frequency spectrum allocation and management are key to reducing inadvertent interference of 

the data links. 

A.3.3.2. Redundant/Independent Navigation 

The air navigation environment is changing, in part, because of the demands of increased traffic 

flow. Allowances for deviation from intended flight paths are being reduced. This provides 

another means for increasing air traffic capacity as airways and standard departures and 

approaches can be constructed with less separation. As tolerances for navigational deviation 

decrease, the need to precisely maintain course grows. All aircraft must ensure they have robust 

navigational means. Historically, this robustness has been achieved by installation of redundant 

navigational systems. The need for dependable, precise navigation reinforces the redundancy 

requirements. 

While navigation accuracy and reliability pertain to military operations and traffic management, 

current systems are achieving the necessary standard without redundancy and without reliance on 

ground-based navigation aids. The Federal Radionavigation Plan, signed January 2006, 

establishes the following national policies: 

3⁄4 Properly certified GPS is approved as a supplemental system for domestic en route and 

terminal navigation, and for nonprecision approach and landing operations. 

3⁄4 The FAA’s phase-down plan for ground-based navigation aid systems (NAVAIDS) retains at 

least a minimum operational network of ground-based NAVAIDS for the foreseeable future.

3⁄4 Sufficient ground-based NAVAIDS will be maintained to provide the FAA and the airspace 

users with a safe recovery and sustained operations capability in the event of a disruption in 

satellite navigation service. 

These policies apply, as a minimum, to all aircraft flying in civil airspace. With GPS, the 

prospect for relief of some redundancy requirements in manned aviation may be an option in the 

future. However, UASs have a diminished prospect for relief since, unlike manned aircraft, a 

UAS without communication links cannot readily fall back on dead reckoning, contact 

navigation, and map reading in the same sense that a manned aircraft can. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 116 

A.3.3.3. Autonomy 

Advances in computer and communications technologies have enabled the development of 

autonomous unmanned systems. With the increase in computational power available, 

developmental UASs are able to achieve much more sophisticated subsystem, guidance, 

navigation and control, sensor, and communications autonomy than previous systems. For 

example, Global Hawk’s airborne systems are designed to identify, isolate, and compensate for a 

wide range of possible system/subsystem failures and autonomously take actions to ensure 

system safety. Preprogrammed decision trees are built to address each possible failure during 

each part of the mission. 

One of the most difficult aspects of high levels of autonomy is ensuring that all elements remain 

synchronized. Verifying that 1) all messages are received, 2) all aircraft have correctly 

interpreted the messages, and 3) the entire squadron has a single set of mission plans to execute 

will be a key accomplishment. 

A.3.3.4. Lost Link 

In the event of lost C2 links, military UASs are typically programmed to climb to a predefined 

altitude to attempt to reestablish contact; this “lost link profile” may not be appropriate for 

operations in the NAS. If contact is not reestablished in a given time, the UAS can be 

preprogrammed to retrace its outbound route home, fly direct to home, or continue its mission. 

With an irreversible loss of the C2 data link, however, there is usually no procedure for a 

communications-out recovery. (Global Hawk does have this capability using differential GPS 

and pre-programmed divert airfields.) Examination of a lost C2 link scenario illustrates that this 

communications issue can become a critical UAS failure mode. 

No Radio (NORDO) requirements are well documented in 14 CFR 91.185. Remarkably, most 

lost C2 link situations bear a striking resemblance to NORDO, and UASs would enhance their 

predictability by autonomously following the guidance. The one exception to this case is the 

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions clause. UASs, even with an autonomous S&A system, 

would enhance overall safety by continuing to fly IFR. Should normal ATC-voice 

communications fail, the FAA also has the capability to patch airspace users through to the 

controlling ATC authority by phone at any time. 

A.3.4. Future Environment 

The migration of the NAS from ground-based traffic control to airborne traffic management, 

scheduled to occur over the next decade, will have significant implications for UASs. S&A will 

become an integrated, automated part of routine position reporting and navigation functions by 

relying on a combination of ADS-B and GPS. In effect, it will create a virtual bubble of airspace 

around each aircraft so that when bubbles contact, avoidance is initiated. All aircraft will be 

required to be equipped to the same level, making the unmanned or manned status of an aircraft 

transparent to both flyers and to the FAA. 

Finally, the pejorative perception that UASs are by nature more dangerous than manned aircraft 

needs to be countered by recognizing that UASs can provide an equivalent level of safety to that 

of manned aircraft and possess the following inherent attributes that contribute to flying safety: 

3⁄4 Many manned aircraft mishaps occur during the takeoff and landing phases of flight, when 

human decisions and control inputs are substantial factors. Robotic aircraft are not 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 117 

programmed to take chances; either preprogrammed conditions are met or the system goes 

around. This will likely reduce the incidence of mishaps during these phases of flight. 

3⁄4 Since human support systems are not carried, mishaps from failed life support systems (e.g., 

Payne Stewart, Helios Airways 522) will not occur. 

3⁄4 An automated takeoff and landing capability reduces the need for pattern work and results in 

reduced exposure to mishaps, particularly in the area surrounding main operating bases. 

3⁄4 UAS control stations can access resources not available in the traditional cockpit and thus 

increase the operator’s situational awareness. 

3⁄4 A greater percentage of UAS operator training can be performed through simulation given 

the nature of GCSs. Using simulations reduces the need to actually fly the aircraft and the 

related exposure to mishaps. 

A.3.5. DoD Organizations with Roles in UAS Airspace Integration 

As discussed, access to the NAS is currently attained primarily through the COA process, which 

relies on a combination of procedures and observers to provide the ELOS for UASs. Both 

regulatory and technical issues need to be addressed to attain UAS integration. The 

organizations within the DoD that are addressing these issues and are related to current and 

future operations include OSD Oversight and Policy, the Joint Staff chartered organizations, and 

the military departments’ chartered organizations. 

A.3.5.1. OSD Oversight and Policy 

The OUSD(AT&L) established the UAS PTF in October 2001 to address the need for an 

integrated Defense-wide initiative for UAS planning and execution. The UAS PTF provides 

oversight on all DoD UAS acquisition programs. 

DoDD 5030.1925 directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information 

Integration) (ASD(NII)) to chair the DoD Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA). The PBFA 

shall advise and assist the ASD(NII) on ATC, airspace management, NAS matters, joint systems 

acquisition, and aviation-related international affairs. Supporting the PBFA are the PBFA 

Working Group and the UAS Subgroup. 

The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) (ASD(HD)) is the Department’s 

interface with DHS. It has been directed to develop a comprehensive policy document on 

domestic use of UAS. 

A.3.5.2. Joint Staff Chartered Organizations 

The JROC chartered two organizations to improve UAS interoperability and operational 

effectiveness of UAS: 

3⁄4 The former JUAS Material Review Board (MRB), to provide an UAS forum to identify or 

resolve requirements and corresponding materiel issues (July 5, 2005), and 

3⁄4 The JUAS Center of Excellence (COE), to pursue solutions to optimize UAS capabilities and 

utilization (including concepts of operation). 

 

25 DoDD 5030.19, DoD Responsibilities on Federal Aviation and National Airspace System Matters. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 118 

The JUAS MRB was tasked to determine if the current DoD organizations working the UAS 

airspace integration issue were adequately resourced, both in funding and personnel. The 

JUAS COE has published a Joint UAS CONOPS, which includes a CONOPS for UAS providing 

domestic support to civil authorities. 

A.3.5.3. Military Departments’ Chartered Organizations 

Each of the military departments has a UAS program office responsible for the development and 

acquisition of UAS capabilities that meet JROC-validated COCOM needs. Many of DoD UASs 

in development require access to the NAS and foreign domestic airspace. To coordinate related 

technology and standards development, the Air Force, Army, and Navy UAS acquisition 

program managers chartered the Tri-Service UAS Airspace Integration Joint Integrated Product 

Team (JIPT) in December 2005. After conducting a comprehensive assessment of the challenges 

associated with gaining access to civil airspace to meet operational and training requirements, the 

acquisition managers concluded that a coordinating body was needed to focus and align 

resources towards a common set of goals and objectives. The JIPT is organized into issuefocused subteams and support-focused activity centers, one of which is a standards development 

activity center. The subteams are responsible for identifying standards gaps and conducting the 

necessary activities to modify or develop the standards necessary to integrate DoD UAS into the 

NAS. The activity centers, through the Systems Engineering and Integration Team (SEIT) 

provide critical requirements analysis, M&S, test and evaluation integration, and standards 

validation support functions to the subteams. Figure A.5 shows the JIPT’s functional 

organization. 

Figure A.5 JIPT Functional Organization

The JIPT is the primary DoD organization working on developing standards for the testing and 

operation of UASs in the NAS. A summary of the JIPT’s mission, scope, and two-track strategy 

for integrating UASs into the NAS follows. 

JIPT

Collision

Avoidance

Subteam

Airworthiness 

Subteam

Operations & 

Procedures

Subteam

Control & 

Communications

Subteam

Systems 

Engineering & 

Integration

Requirements 

Analysis

Modeling & 

Simulation

Test & 

Evaluation

Specialty 

Engineering

Standards 

Development

Activity Centers
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 119 

A.3.5.3.1. JIPT Mission 

The JIPT will develop the standards, policy, and enabling technology necessary to (1) integrate 

UAS operations with manned aircraft operations in nonsegregated airspace, (2) integrate 

resources and activities with industry and airspace regulatory authorities to achieve greater 

alignment with DoD goals and objectives, (3) ensure compatibility and interoperability of global 

access enabling technology and ATC procedures, and (4) provide the necessary documentation 

to affect changes in the global ATC systems to meet the near-, mid-, and long-term airspace 

access needs of the DoD UAS user community. To assist in this, the JIPT will integrate work 

activities with the FAA, civil SDOs, the DoD PBFA, and Military Department-related airspace 

organizations (where deemed appropriate) to optimize resource allocation; influence standards, 

procedures, and policy adoption schedules; and promote convergence of technical and procedural 

solutions to ensure system interoperability. 

A.3.5.3.2. JIPT Scope 

The JIPT will contribute to the development of the standards, procedures, policy, and enabling 

technology necessary to safely integrate UAS operations with manned aircraft operations in 

nonsegregated airspace, on a timeline that is in alignment with the acquisition schedules of major 

DoD UAS PORs and the allocated funding for this work. It will also facilitate near- and midterm expansion of DoD UAS use of the NAS through a modified COA process to meet existing 

operational requirements. 

A.3.5.3.3. JIPT Two-Track Strategy 

In order to accommodate these near-, mid-, and long-term needs, the JIPT intends to use a twotrack strategy in which each track will proceed in parallel with the other. The first track, which 

is focused on resolving near-term operational issues, is an incremental approach that will 

systematically work with the Military Departments and the FAA to expand access to the NAS 

beyond the existing COA restrictions for specific (CONOP/UAS) combinations. Initially, one of 

each Military Department’s UAS operational bases will be focused upon to address, through 

concentrated effort, the near-term challenges of UAS operations in the NAS. Once an approach 

for reducing the restrictions on UAS has been proven to work at these locations, this approach 

will be standardized and then applied to various other base locations to address the Military 

Departments’ near- and mid-term needs. Track 1 success hinges on development and 

standardization of a unified safety analysis framework that the FAA and DoD may agree to in 

principle and in fact. 

The second track will build upon the approach used in Track 1 by using a disciplined systems 

engineering approach to generate performance standards for UAS enabling technologies, as well 

as the operational procedures, that will provide UASs with an appropriate level of safety for the 

airspace in which they will operate. Track 2 should address the long-term needs that each of the 

Military Departments has by ensuring that the necessary standards and procedures are in place 

and that there is a clear path defined for development of the enabling technologies needed to 

ensure safe UAS operations in civil airspace. Figure A.6 depicts this two-track approach. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 120 

Figure A.6 Track 1 and Track 2 Strategies 

Recognizing the criticality of gaining FAA and industry consensus on the approach and rigor for 

developing and validating an integrated materiel/nonmateriel solution, including standards 

needed to operate safely in the NAS, the JIPT has closely aligned its activities with those of 

RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 (see Figure A.7). The SC-203 is chartered by the FAA to 

develop civil Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards (MASPS) and Minimum 

Operating Performance Standards (MOPS) for UASs, S&A, and communications and control. 

The JIPT ensures subject matter experts are engaged in the work activities of SC-203 and 

conducts critical planning activities with SC-203 leadership to ensure synergy of effort. It is the 

intent of the JIPT to conduct, or otherwise influence, necessary studies, analysis, and technology 

development activities within the DoD to fill critical knowledge gaps within SC-203 that could 

not be met by other means. This close coupling with a key civil UAS Airspace Integration SDO 

that is recognized and supported by the FAA should increase the probability that the DoD will 

achieve its goals and objectives and should reduce the risk that the DoD standards will be on a 

divergent path from those of the civil community. However, the current SC-203 schedule does 

not meet the timelines of many DoD UAS programs. 

Track 2: Certified Performance Standards for the NAS

Track 1: Incremental Expansion into the NAS

Increasing Access to the NAS

Global Hawk at Beale AFB

Shadow/Warrior at Ft. Huachuca

Maritime Demonstrator at NAS Pax River

Predator at Grand Forks AFB

Baseline: Certificate of Baseline: Certificate of Authorization (COA) for On Authorization (COA) for On-going Operations going Operations

Objective: Manned Aircraft Objective: Manned Aircraft Equivalent Level of Access Equivalent Level of Access 

Installation Specific Installation Specific

CONOPS

By Platform By Platform

Platform Access Platform Access

To

Any Military Airfield Any Military Airfield

Platform Access Platform Access

By

Airspace Category Airspace Category

• Interim Performance Standards Interim Performance Standards

• Procedures Procedures

• Modeling and Simulation Modeling and Simulation

• Equipage Requirements Equipage Requirements

• Testing Testing

• Validation Data Validation Data Systems Safety Analysis

Model
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 121 

Track 1 (DoD/FAA)

• Programmatic Framework

• Systems Safety Framework

• Process Elements

– Local/Regional CONEMP

– System Characterization

• UAS

• Airspace

• Air Traffic Management

– System Analysis

• Safety

• Operational

– Risks/ Impacts

– Restrictions/Limitations

– Risk Mitigation

• Technical Feasibility

• Cost

• Schedule

• Decision (Yes/No)

– Data Collection

• Safety/Operations Feedback Loop

Track 2 SC-203

• Standards Development Phase

– CONOPS

– Validated Operational Requirements

– Gap Analysis

– Functional Requirements

– Initial Performance Standards

• Subject Matter Experts

• JCTD PHASE I

• Standards Validation Phase

– M&S

– T&E

– Analysis

– JCTD PHASE II (Standards Validation)

• Policy/Regulatory Recommendations

Information – Data

Near 

Mid

Long

VTUAV Warrior Warrior BAMS N-UCAS

PBFA FAA

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

A.3.5.3.3.1. Track 1 Definition 

The objective of Track 1 is to incrementally expand UAS access to the NAS in the near- to 

mid-term to meet current and/or emerging operational requirements. Track 1 will focus on 

installation-specific CONOP by UAS platform. This track will not seek to change national level 

policy. The priority for working each installation-specific UAS CONOP will be determined by 

the individual Military Departments and must comply with the UAS-related standards including 

system hardware and operators’ qualifications/currency requirements. One of the key activities 

within Track 1 will be to perform a standardized safety analysis that will seek access to regional 

airspace through an expanded COA. Track 1 will focus on providing cost-effective, 

operationally useful expansion of UAS access to the NAS that is targeted to specific operational 

needs of the Military Departments. The JIPT will employ both procedural and/or technical 

solutions to mitigate risk and to accomplish this objective. 

To facilitate a standardized Track 1 approach, the JIPT will work with the FAA’s Unmanned 

Aircraft Program Office to establish a mutually agreeable process in which to evaluate DoD 

requests for expanded airspace access. Based on this integrated approach with the FAA, the 

JIPT will provide the requesting Military Department with the appropriate information to 

conduct the safety study and submit a complete package to the FAA for final approval. Once a 

sufficient body of data has been collected, the JIPT will expand the Track 1 efforts beyond a 

single installation with a specific UAS CONOP and move toward an integrated approach for 

increased UAS access. This will be accomplished through additional analysis and data collected 

from ongoing operations to substantiate the ability to safely operate a given UAS outside DoDcontrolled airfields, or alternatively, multiple UAS platforms out of a single DoD-controlled 

airfield. The compilation of the individual installation efforts into an integrated NAS-level 

analysis should support the performance standards development effort in Track 2. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 122 

The incremental approach to airspace integration in Track 1 should result in two key outcomes: 

3⁄4 DoD will have an avenue to meet near- to mid-term operational needs to operate in the NAS, 

and 

3⁄4 It will provide a forum for other airspace users, regulators, and the general public to become 

comfortable with the level of safety demonstrated by DoD UAS operations. 

A.3.5.3.3.2. Track 2 Definition 

The objective of Track 2 is to develop the performance standards for enabling DoD UAS 

operations and to recommend the necessary changes to existing FAA policy and/or CFR required 

to routinely operate UAS within the NAS. Track 2, therefore, will at a minimum attempt to 

establish and validate the standards needed to provide UAS with a level of safety equivalent to 

that of manned aircraft. To arrive at the needed performance standards, the JIPT will integrate 

the data collected from flight operations in Track 1 with an initial set of performance standards. 

These standards will be developed in coordination with the appropriate organizations needed to 

concur on an initial set of standards. The JIPT will then proceed with a detailed assessment of 

these initial performance standards through a rigorous M&S analysis effort. The JIPT will work, 

in coordination with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office through the DoD PBFA and 

the Military Departments’ airspace functional organizations (i.e. Air Force Flight Standards 

Agency, U.S. Army Aeronautical Service Agency, the Chief of Naval Operations (Code N88F), 

and HQMC Aviation (APC)) to ensure that the M&S approach taken by the JIPT has the degree 

of rigor and specificity needed by the FAA for high-confidence results. The JIPT’s M&S 

activity will be open to FAA and FAA-designated agents to advise on the degree of rigor for 

high-confidence results. As these standards are developed and validated, the JIPT will provide 

data and results to the SDOs used by the FAA for developing certified standards. 

Once initial results from the M&S activity are produced, an initial evaluation of the overall UAS 

performance can be determined, and appropriate modifications can be made to the performance 

standards until the appropriate level of safety is achieved for the UASs. These performance 

standards will then be validated through an appropriate test and evaluation phase that will 

validate the M&S assumptions and performance characteristics and provide the needed realworld data to substantiate and validate the standards themselves. These validated performance 

standards will then be provided to the appropriate SDOs for developing certified regulatory 

guidance for the FAA. In addition, the JIPT intends to coordinate this work (technology 

development, acquisition, demonstrations, flight test) through the individual Military 

Departments’ UAS program offices, which will be responsible for meeting the finalized set of 

standards and procedures. The JIPT will then refine the Track 1 analysis and data collection 

activities to improve the fidelity of the validation process. These refinements will be made in 

close coordination with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office to continuously align our 

process with their analysis requirements. 

A.3.5.3.3.3. UAS Airspace Integration Roadmap 

Track 1 and Track 2 strategy implementation is outlined in the proposed UAS Airspace 

Integration Roadmap (see Figure A.8), which is currently being socialized within the broader 

DoD stakeholder community. The degree to which this plan will be successful depends upon the 

following: 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 123 

3⁄4 The key stakeholders organizations and communities must reach consensus on a common 

path forward, and 

3⁄4 The effort must be prioritized in terms of expertise applied to the effort along with the 

appropriate level of funding to execute on the timeline provided. 

Standards 

Validation

Standards 

Implement’n 1

Test and 

Evaluation

Modeling and 

Simulation

Standards 

Development

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Activity FY2008 FY2009

Standards 

Validation

Standards 

Implement’n 1

Test and 

Evaluation

Modeling and 

Simulation

Standards 

Development

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Activity FY2008 FY2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

FY2010 FY2011

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

FY2010 FY2011

Standards JCTD Standards JCTD

Standards 

Validation

Standards 

Implement’n 2

Standards 

Implement’n 1

Modeling and 

Simulation

Standards 

Updated

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Activity FY2012 FY2013

Standards 

Validation

Standards 

Implement’n 2

Standards 

Implement’n 1

Modeling and 

Simulation

Standards 

Updated

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Activity FY2012 FY2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

FY2014 FY2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

FY2014 FY2015

Track 1 Sites

Implementation JCTD Implementation JCTD

Implementation JCTD Implementation JCTD

Completed Deliverable Interim Deliverable Milestone

Track 2 Sites

DoD Standards

6-mnth Spirals -mnth Spirals Annual Spirals Annual Spirals

FAA Order 7610.4 FAA Order 7610.4

M&S Standard Tool Kit M&S Standard Tool Kit

Track 1 Track 1 Track 2 Track 2

JCTD

Initial Initial DoD SME Standards SME Standards

Figure A.8 Proposed UAS Airspace Integration Roadmap 

The JIPT is proposing a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration for FY2009 to advance the 

standards and technology work inside the FY2010 Program Objective Memorandum timeline. 

The JIPT, chartered by the Military Departments’ UAS program managers in 2005, has taken 

action to develop a comprehensive strategy and programmatic roadmap to meet short-, mid-, and 

long-term Military Department UAS operational and training airspace access needs. To enhance 

the probability of success, the JIPT is working closely with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft 

Program Office and the FAA-chartered RTCA SC-203 on unmanned aviation and with other 

DoD UAS stakeholders to gain consensus and support for a single DoD roadmap that addresses 

the broad materiel/nonmateriel solution set. 

A.3.6. Summary 

To maximize the operational effectiveness of UASs, unmanned aircraft must be able to integrate 

with manned and unmanned operations, both in the NAS and oceanic and foreign domestic 

airspace. To attain this goal the DoD must accomplish the following: 

1. Foster an airspace regulatory environment that encourages the safe use of UASs in 

nonsegregated airspace, 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) 

Page 124 

2. Improve the flight reliability of UASs to equal or better that of their manned counterparts, 

3. Secure the control and sensor/relay communications sent to and from UASs, 

4. Implement the JIPT’s two-track strategy to gain increased access to the NAS for all UASs 

under the current COA process and attain a level of access for UAS (Cat III) equivalent to 

that of manned aircraft, and 

5. Work with the FAA to define appropriate conditions and requirements under which a single 

pilot would be allowed to control multiple airborne UASs simultaneously. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 125 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

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

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Applied Research Associates – Vertek Division

Inventory: 5 Prototypes/74 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: ARTS is a fielded, low-cost, survivable robotics platform 

(8100 pounds) capable of remote operations in various mission profiles. 

The system can remotely employ an array of tools and attachments to 

detect, assess, and render safe large IEDs and large-vehicle bombs as well 

as clear unexploded ordnance (UXO) from prepared areas. In addition, the 

system employs a variety of advanced navigation, control, and sensing systems. 

Characteristics: 

ARTS 

Size 113 in × 64 in × 78 in 

Weight 8100 lb 

Payload Capacity 3500 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 6–8 hr 

Control – Radio 1.5-mi radius 

Control – Teleoperation 1.5-nm radius 

Interoperability Planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Blade and shield assembly 

Robotic backhoe 

Improved water cannon mount 

Planned: 

Submunitions clearance system 

Data feedback system 

Box rake 

Improved operator control station 

ARTS laser ordnance neutralization system 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 126 

B.2. Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) 

User Service: Army (Deferred) 

Manufacturer: BAE Systems 

Inventory: 675 To Be Fielded To 15 FCS (BCT) 

Status: POR

Background: The ARV is a 9.3-ton common robotic chassis 

with two specific mission configurations. The ARV-RSTA 

will support the mounted force providing reconnaissance and 

surveillance. The ARV-RSTAs using sophisticated on-board 

sensors will detect, recognize, and identify targets with 

enough fidelity to support the use of LOS, BLOS, and nonLOS assets to support cooperative engagements. The ARV-A 

will have an array of lethal armament consisting of mediumcaliber cannon, a missile system, and a machine gun system. When teamed with manned ground vehicles (MGVs) 

in the Combined Arms Battalion, the ARV-A and ARV-RSTA enable the commander to extend the area of 

influence and significantly enhance situational awareness, lethality, survivability, and agility. Due to POM 

constraints in FY2008–13, the ARV development is deferred. FCS will support the TARDEC and DARPA Robotic 

Vehicle Technology ATO that will focus on “ARV-like” platform weight and capability. 

Characteristics: 

 ARV-RSTA ARV-A 

Size 176 in × 99 in × 96.5 in 

Weight 18,600 lb 

Payload Capacity Mission packages 

Performance: 

Endurance 216 nm 

Control MGV crew station or centralized controller; semi-autonomous/teleoperated 

Interoperability JAUS-compliant 

ANS with GPS with INS, perception sensors for obstacle detection and avoidance, and 

autonomous navigation algorithms 

Unmanned ground sensors, hazard clear lane marker, and remote chemical detection

Mission Package Payloads 

Medium-range EO/IR with 16 ft mast 

M240 ROK weapon 7.62 mm, 2400 rounds 

Ammunition mix: 4/1 ball/tracer 

Medium-range EO/IR 

MK44 primary weapon 30 mm, 120 rounds 

Ammunition mix: 90 armor-piercing 

fin-stabilized discarding sabot and 

30 high-explosive air burst 

LOS launcher 

Javelin Blk I (mounted), 2 missiles 

M240 ROK secondary weapon 7.62 mm, 

coaxial to MK44, 600 rounds 

Ammunition mix: 4/1 ball/tracer 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 127 

B.3. Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Pearson Engineering, Ltd. (United Kingdom) 

Inventory: 33 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Marine Corps program ABV is a tracked, combat 

engineer vehicle designed to breach minefields and complex obstacles 

and provide in-stride breaching capability. ABV uses an M1A1 tank 

chassis as a platform. Equipment includes a full-width mine plow, two 

Mk 155 linear demolition charge systems, a light-vehicle obscuration 

smoke system, two lane marking systems, and a remote control system. 

The ABV can be operated manually by a live crew or remotely using 

remote control. Robotic Systems Joint Project Office is currently 

coordinating fielding requirements with Marine Corps Systems Command and the Program Manager of Engineer 

Systems. The number of vehicles being fielded with the remote control system kit is being determined. 

Characteristics: 

ABV 

Size M1A1 tank chassis 

Weight 63 T 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance N/A 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Full-width mine plow 

Combat dozer blade 

Two Mk 155 linear demolition charges 

Remote control system 

Lane marketing system 

Laser rangefinder 

Smoke grenade system 

Weapon platform station 

Planned: 

None 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 128 

B.4. BomBot, MK 4 MOD 0 EOD Robot 

User Service: Navy and Joint Services EOD 

Manufacturer: Innovative Response Technologies 

Inventory: 10 Prototypes/1842 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: Joint Services EOD BomBot is a low-cost, expendable robot 

for IED neutralization. It is a small, fast, off-road vehicle equipped with a 

small explosive charge delivery system, and it is remotely controlled using 

either video feedback or simply LOS radio. In employment, a BomBot is 

driven to an IED, and a C4 explosive charge is dropped from the vehicle, 

which is then driven away, if practical, before the charge is remotely 

detonated. 

Characteristics: 

BomBot 

Size 20 in × 18 in × 12 in 

Weight 17 lb 

Payload Capacity 15 lb 

Performance: 

Control – Radio 1000–1900 ft 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

C4 explosive charge 

Planned: 

None 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 129 

B.5. MV-4 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: DOK-ing Co. (Croatia) 

Inventory: 21 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The MV-4 system is a mechanical antipersonnel mine 

clearing system that uses a chain flail and hammers to mechanically defeat 

antipersonnel mines. This system has been procured by the Army to meet 

the robotic combat support system requirement as a formal Army acquisition 

program to provide current mine-clearing capability. Systems are currently 

deployed in Afghanistan to perform countermine operations and in Iraq to 

perform Army engineer route clearance missions. 

Characteristics: 

MV-4 

Size 209 in × 79 in × 55 in (with arms out) 

Weight 12,600 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance N/A 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Mini-flail system 

Anti-tank mine rollers 

Blade 

Large gripper 

Planned: 

None 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 130 

B.6. Dragon Runner 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Automatika 

Inventory: 16 Prototypes/10 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Dragon Runner is a joint development effort between the 

MCWL and Carnegie Mellon University. Dragon Runner is a man-portable 

system that is completely contained in a single backpack (robot, operator 

control unit, and control computer). It is used by the Marine Corps for route 

clearing, building clearing, and trip-wire investigation operations. With its 

dump body attachment, Dragon Runner is capable of delivering charges to a 

designated location for remote detonation of IEDs. There have been 

12 systems procured, with 10 currently fielded, and an additional order of 4 systems was delivered in November 

2006 for a total of 16 systems fielded. 

Characteristics: 

Dragon Runner 

Size 16.6 in × 12.2 in × 6 in 

Weight 17 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 45 min (full motion)/6 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 131 

B.7. Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle (TUGV) 

User Service: Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Carnegie Mellon University 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Marine Corps program Gladiator is an armed, 

armored combat robot to reduce risk and neutralize threats to the 

warfighter. The Gladiator carries a range of sensors and weapons 

including forward-looking infrared and daylight cameras, shoulderlaunched multipurpose assault weapons, M240 or M249 machine guns, 

a light-vehicle obscurant smoke system, and antipersonnel obstacle 

breaching system. The system is teleoperated by a Marine up to 

1 nautical mile LOS from the vehicle. The Robotic Systems Joint 

Project Office is coordinating requirements with Marine Corps Combat Development Command, but the program is 

currently unfunded. 

Characteristics: 

Gladiator 

Size 80 in × 51 in × 60 in 

Weight 2800 lb 

Payload Capacity 400 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 24 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – Teleoperation Up to 1 nm 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Pan/tilt/zoom day/night video camera 

Integrated position-locating system 

Laser rangefinder 

Acoustic detection system 

Antitampering/handling devices 

Antipersonnel/obstacle breaching system 

M240G medium machine gun 

M249 squad automatic weapon 

Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon 

Light-vehicle obscuration smoke system 

Automatic chemical agent detection alarm 

AN/VDR-2 nuclear detection system 

Multipurpose cart 

Planned: 

Mine-detection capabilities 

Mine-proofing (antipersonnel mines) 

Lane marking 

Urban breaching 

Tactical casualty evacuation 

Combat resupply 

Countersniper activities 

Communications relay 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 132 

B.8. Man-Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) 

MK 1 MOD 0 (PackBot EOD) and MK 2 MOD 0 (TALON) 

User Service: Navy and Joint Services EOD 

Manufacturer: iRobot Corp. (PackBot) and Foster-Miller, Inc. (Talon) 

Inventory: 1372 Objective For All Four Services Plus CENTCOM 

Status: POR 

Background: The MTRS is a fielded Joint Services EOD robotic system for use by 

Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force EOD technicians. The MTRS provides a 

capability for the EOD technician to perform remote reconnaissance and 

neutralization at UXO and IED incident sites. The MTRS consists of a robotic 

vehicle and an operator control station that is small enough to be transported by two 

people. The nomenclature assigned to the MTRS PackBot is “MK 1 MOD 0 EOD 

Robot” and to the MTRS Talon, “MK 2 MOD 0 EOD Robot.” As of 21 May 2007, 

there were 611 MK 1 and MK 2 EOD robots fielded to the Military Departments 

with additional systems on contract and scheduled to be delivered through 2007. 

Additionally, to meet urgent CENTCOM requirements, 225 MK 1 and MK 2 EOD 

robots have been delivered. Production is expected to continue through FY2009 to 

satisfy inventory objectives of all the Military Departments. 

Characteristics: 

MTRS Talon MTRS PackBot 

Size 33 in × 23 in × 25 in 31 in × 20 in × 15 in 

Weight 165 lb (includes vehicle, OCU, 

and batteries for two missions) 

135 lb (includes vehicle, OCU, 

and batteries for two missions) 

Payload Capacity 10 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 4 hr against realistic mission profile 2 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – Teleoperation/Radio 656 ft/2624 ft 

Interoperability JAUS, RS-232 payloads, USB payloads 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Manipulator 

Extendable pan/tilt/zoom video camera 

Planned: 

Nuclear detection, chemical detection, render safe tools, disruption tools, disposal 

tools, biological agent detection tools 

MTRS Talon 

MTRS Packbot 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 133 

B.9. Mine Area Clearance Equipment (MACE) 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Hydrema Joint Stock Co. 

Inventory: 1 Prototype/3 Additional In Progress/10 Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: For supporting mine clearing operations on expeditionary 

airfields, the Air Force employs the MACE flail system, which is rapidly 

lowered into position at the rear of the vehicle. The system can clear a 

mine path 11.5 ft wide. The flail assembly consists of a rotating axle with 

72 chains attached; the end of each of the chains is fitted with a hammer 

head weighing 2 lb. The axle rotates at up to 700 revolutions per minute. 

Characteristics: 

MACE 

Size 8.8 ft × 27.9 ft × 9.2 ft 

Weight 39,600 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 8+ hr 

Control Assisted teleoperation 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Mine-clearing flail 

Planned: 

None 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 134 

B.10. Mobile Detection, Assessment, and Response 

System (MDARS) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: General Dynamics Robotics Systems 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes/30 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: MDARS provides commanders with a robotic capability for 

conducting semi-autonomous random patrols and surveillance activities. MDARS 

enhances physical security, reduces personnel exposure in dangerous situations, 

provides continuous surveillance over unprotected high-value inventory, reduces 

manpower requirements, and is an effective means of providing compensatory 

security in the event of security system malfunction. The MDARS Modernization 

Program includes detection on the move, increased sensor detection and assessment 

range, increased platform speed and mobility, and increased system reliability. 

Characteristics: 

MDARS 

Size 98 in × 62.5 in × 46 in 

Weight 3140 lb 

Payload Capacity 300 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 12 hr 

Control – Ethernet Local: up to 6.2 mi with relays; using VPN secure connection 

demonstrated control from multiple locations remote from the 

MDARS vehicles 

Control – Teleoperation Same as above 

Interoperability Planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

IDAS 

Barrier assessment 

Product assessment 

Planned: 

Nonlethal response 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 135 

B.11. Multifunction, Agile, Remote-Controlled Robot (MARCbot) 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Exponent, Inc. 

Inventory: 670 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: MARCbot is a low-cost IED investigative robot used by 

Army and Marine Corps personnel to provide a standoff investigation of 

suspected IED emplacements. MARCbot uses an articulating arm to 

maneuver a camera into position to confirm or deny a suspected IED. The 

ability to confirm IEDs reduces the number of false alarm calls to EOD 

technicians and allows the patrol or convoy to proceed with minimal 

exposure to hostile environments. The U.S. Government has purchased an 

engineering drawing package with Government purpose rights, and 

currently Applied Geo Technologies has proven their production capability as an additional source for procurement. 

Characteristics: 

MARCbot 

Size 24.5 in × 18.5 in × 13.5 in 

Weight 25 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 4 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Retractable pan and tilt color camera 

Planned: 

FIDO explosive “sniffer” 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 136 

B.12. Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicle (MULE) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control 

Inventory: 16 Prototypes/1746 To Be Fielded (MULE-T: 5 prototypes, 

567 production units; MULE-CM: 5 prototypes, 477 production units; 

ARV-A(L): 6 prototypes, 702 production units) 

Status: POR 

Background: The MULE program has a 2.5-ton common chassis with 

three variants to support the dismounted soldier and enhance the clearing of 

antitank mines. The MULE-T will carry 1900 to 2400 pounds of equipment 

and rucksacks for dismounted infantry squads with mobility to follow the 

squad in complex terrain. The MULE-CM will provide the capability to 

detect, mark, and neutralize antitank mines by integrating the FCS (BCT) 

Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS). The ARV-A(L) will have integrated weapons and an 

RSTA package to support dismounted infantry in locating and destroying enemy platforms and positions. 

Characteristics: 

 MULE-T MULE-CM ARV-A(L) 

Size (sensor and 

deployment 

mechanisms stowed) 

171.4 in × 88.3 in × 77.5 in 171.4 in × 95 in × 99.4 in 171.4 in × 88.3 in × 101.1 in 

Weight 5,000 lb 

Payload Capacity 1900–2400 lb Integrate GSTAMIDS Integrate weapon stations 

and sensors 

Performance: 

Endurance 189 nm 

Control MGV crew station or centralized controller 

Semi-autonomous/teleoperated 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Package 

Payloads 

ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point detection 

system 

PSMRS supply status monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point detection 

system 

PSMRS supply status monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

GSTAMIDS: Anti-tank mine 

detection, lane marking, mine 

neutralization 

ANS 

GPS/INS 

Articulating arm suspension 

Hybrid skid steering 

JTRS GMR four-channel radio 

ICS Type VII 

Acoustic sensors 

JCAD chemical point detection 

system 

PSMRS supply status monitors 

Embedded TESS training 

Two Javelin missiles 

M240 machine gun 

EO/IR rangefinder/target 

designator 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 137 

B.13. Omni-Directional Inspection System (ODIS) 

User Service: JGRE 

Manufacturer: Kuchera Defense Systems 

Inventory: 15 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: ODIS is an approximately 40-pound prototype under-vehicle 

inspection platform that is being developed and assessed for applications 

pertaining to sealed perimeter checkpoint security and includes newly 

improved and enhanced modular wheel designs providing the capability for 

field servicing without evacuation to the United States. This effort will also 

evaluate the utility of potential single-platform multimissions rather than 

relying on multiple robot systems. There are approximately 15 ODIS prototypes employed in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom today. 

Characteristics: 

ODIS 

Size 26 in × 24 in × 4 in 

Weight 40 lb 

Payload Capacity 40 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr per battery 

Control – Teleoperation Camera up to 1312 ft 

Control – Radio Range up to 3 nm 

Interoperability Interfaces with proprietary OCU, 

planned JAUS compatibility 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Television camera 

Infrared camera 

Chemical (blister and nerve agent) detector 

Radiological detector 

Planned: 

Future chemical-biological sensors 

Radiological sensors 

Nitrate sensors 

Zipper mast capability 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 138 

B.14. MK 3 MOD 0 Remote Ordnance Neutralization System (RONS) 

User Service: Navy and Joint Services EOD 

Manufacturer: REMOTEC, Inc. 

Inventory: 4 Prototypes/271 Fielded 

Status: POR 

Background: The RONS is a fielded Joint Services EOD robotic system 

for use by Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force EOD technicians. 

The Navy is the single Service manager for EOD technology and training. 

RONS consists of a remote platform and an operator control station and is 

designed to complement or augment the EOD technician during 

reconnaissance, access, render-safe, pick-up, and carry-away-anddisposal activities in extremely hazardous missions involving UXO and IEDs. 

Characteristics: 

RONS 

Size 36 in × 29 in × 61 in 

Weight 700 lb 

Payload Capacity 60 lb on arm 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr against realistic mission profile 

Control – Teleoperation 2493 ft 

Control – Radio 3280 ft 

Interoperability Standalone system, RS-232 payloads 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Extendable pan/tilt/zoom video camera 

Manipulator 

Shotgun 

0.50-caliber de-armer 

Jet remote-opening device 

PAN disruptor 

RE-70 (MK 40 Mod 0 UXO disrupter) 

Nuclear and chemical detection 

Cordless power tools 

Trailer hitch 

Window breaker 

Water disruption tools 

Small-caliber de-armer (MK 38 Mod 0) 

Advanced radiographic system 

Multiple disrupter adapter (PAN, RE-70, Shotgun) 

Tabletop controller 

Planned: 

Dual EOD disrupter 

Medium directional energetic tool 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 139 

B.15. Robo-Trencher 

User Service: Air Force 

Manufacturer: Tractor – Ditch Witch Inc.; Robotic Kit – 

Applied Research Associates, Vertek Division 

Inventory: 2 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The Air Force Robo-Trencher is a fielded, 

converted Ditch Witch 7610 trencher used by engineering 

installation squadrons for communications installations. The 

trencher has been modified using previously developed modular, 

fielded ARTS robotic components. Robo-Trencher is able to provide a standoff capability to perform cable 

trenching and excavation mission in hazardous areas. There are two Robo-Trenchers currently fielded with no more 

planned. 

Characteristics: 

Robo-Trencher 

Size 8 ft × 11 ft × 6 ft 

Weight 12,000 lb maximum 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 8+ hr 

Control Teleoperated up to 1.5 nm LOS 

Interoperability Proprietary OCU control, compatible with ARTS 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Trencher tools 

Backhoe tool 

Planned: 

None 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 140 

B.16. Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: iRobot 

Inventory: 6 Prototypes/1245 Planned 

Status: POR 

Background: The SUGV is a lightweight, man-transportable system capable of 

operating in urban terrain, tunnels, sewers, and caves. It will weigh less than 

30 pounds and carry up to 6 pounds of payload. Capabilities will include a 

manipulator arm, fiber optic tether, EO/IR sensor, laser rangefinder, laser target 

designator, and chemical/ radiological/nuclear detector. The SUGV is batteryoperated and capable of conducting 6-hour missions in tunnels, sewers, caves, and 

military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) areas. The SUGV is required to fit 

into two modular lightweight load-carrying equipment (MOLLE) packs. Current design allows the vehicle to fit into 

one MOLLE pack, with ancillary equipment (controller, payloads, extra batteries, etc) carried in a second MOLLE 

pack.

Characteristics: 

SUGV 

Size 23.9 in × 16.7 in × 6.5 in 

Weight < 30 lb 

Payload Capacity 6 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 6 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability FCS network, JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

Manipulator arm 

Fiber optic tether 

Laser target designator 

Chemical/radiological/nuclear detector 

Objective: 

Mine detector 

Sense-through-the-wall sensor 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 141 

B.17. Throwbot 

User Service: Army and Marine Corps 

Manufacturer: Recon Robotics 

Inventory: 30 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Throwbot is a small, throwable robot designed for building 

clearing and short-range reconnaissance missions. It has a daylight-only 

camera and is capable of righting itself upon deployment. Throwbot was 

designed at the University of Minnesota and is produced by Recon Robotics in 

Minneapolis. There are 30 units procured and fielded for assessment. 

Characteristics: 

Throwbot 

Size 5.9 in × 2.5 in 

Weight 12 oz 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads N/A 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 142 

B.18. Toughbot 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Omnitech 

Inventory: 51 Fielded 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Toughbot is a small, throwable robot designed for building 

clearing and short-range reconnaissance missions. It contains a driving 

camera, an omnidirectional camera, and an audio sensor. 

Characteristics: 

Toughbot 

Size 6 in × 8 in 

Weight 2.1 lb 

Payload Capacity N/A 

Performance: 

Endurance 2 hr 

Control Teleoperated 

Interoperability N/A 

Mission Package Payloads N/A 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 143 

B.19. Robotic Combat Casualty 

Extraction and Evacuation 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Applied Perception, Inc. 

Inventory: 1 Prototype 

Status: NPOR 

Background: This program involves 

building a prototype robotic patient extraction 

and evacuation system with teleoperation, 

semi-autonomous, and autonomous control 

capabilities implemented on a marsupial 

robotic vehicle pair: a larger robotic evacuation vehicle (REV) for long-range patient 

evacuation (from first responder medic to forward casualty collection and treatment 

site) and a smaller robotic extraction vehicle (REX) for short-range patient extraction 

(from site of injury to soldier first responder or medic). The base TAGS UGV was 

identified by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command as having potential for 

robotic sentry monitoring and reconnaissance tasks. The hardware and software 

required for both the medical and sentry applications are substantially similar, with the 

main systematic differences being in the mission specific payload and application of 

the underlying robotic vehicle functions. In addition to the core autonomous 

navigation and patient detection technologies, a number of vehicle payloads and other 

capabilities have been developed in this program that are widely applicable to a 

number of robotic platforms. These include the following: 

3⁄4 Two-way video and audio telemedicine systems for communications between patient and a remote medic, 

3⁄4 Combined laser/radar obstacle detection and avoidance (also used for safeguarded teleoperation), 

3⁄4 Radar-based vehicle anti-tamper system to detect intruders and direct a camera or other device to their location, 

3⁄4 Automatic docking of the REX into the REV marsupial bay, 

3⁄4 Stereo-based navigation system developed under DARPA’s Learning for Autonomous Ground Robots Program, 

3⁄4 Three-dimensional laser rangefinder data collection for global map building of the environment, 

3⁄4 Global path planning for vehicle motion based on the above created maps, and 

3⁄4 JAUS-compliant OCU and robot software. 

Work continues supported by TATRC and TARDEC to develop patient transport and driver/attendant payloads for 

the TAGS-CX platform that are modular and removable by two men. Both modules are being fitted with 

lightweight removable armor. The objective is to demonstrate that the generic TAGS-CX platform can be rapidly 

configured or reconfigured for multiple missions including patient evacuation. JAUS communications with and 

among the UGVs, their force protection sensors, and medical payloads are being implemented via a secure tri-band 

orthogonal frequency division multiplexing ultra-wide band mesh network developed and implemented by ARL. 

Characteristics:

Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction and Evacuation

Size 11.3 ft × 7.2 ft × 5.8 ft

Weight 6000 lb

Payload Capacity 2000 lb (in order to maintain top speed of vehicle)

Performance: 

Endurance 108 nm

Control JAUS, teleoperated, semi-autonomous

Interoperability JAUS, modular JAUS payloads

Mission Package Payloads Current: gunfire detection system; pan/tilt unit with FLIR and color cameras; Picatinny 

lightweight remote weapon station; long-range, high-resolution laser scanner 

Under development: TATRC medical transport pods, driver/medic control module 

Objective Modular 

Configuration

Initial Fixed Patient Pod Prototype Configuration
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 144 

B.20. Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (BEAR) 

User Service: Army 

Manufacturer: Vecna Technologies, Inc. 

Inventory: 3 Prototypes 

Status: NPOR 

 Laboratory Prototypes Operational Prototype & Objective Configuration 

Background: This highly agile and powerful mobile robot is capable of lifting and carrying a combat casualty from 

hazardous areas including multistory buildings or from under fire to a safe area where medical assessment and 

treatment can be performed by a combat medic prior to evacuation. Three successive prototypes have been built. 

The initial laboratory prototype was built on a two-wheeled Segway base. The subsequent robot prototype uses a 

hybrid wheeled/tracked base with a Segway-type dynamic balancing (gyro-based) system. The dynamic balancing 

system and variable-geometry hybrid base give the robot a high degree of mobility over rough, uneven terrain and 

dynamic balancing behaviors for high-speed mobility when speed is needed. The mobility base is tightly integrated 

with a powerful but sensitive upper body with arms, capable of gently cradling a load of up to 500 pounds. The 

operational prototype BEAR will include a mobility base composed of independently controlled tracked and 

wheeled “legs” tightly integrated with a powerful but sensitive upper body with robotic manipulator “arms.” The 

track array will be segmented in two places allowing the robot to tilt forward or backward and bend down on its 

“knees” to pick up a casualty and maintain a low profile on the battlefield. The segmented design approach will 

enable the robot to recover from falling or being knocked over from any position. When conditions permit, the 

prototype has demonstrated the ability to travel at high speed in a fully erect posture with and without a casualty. 

Also, the prototype can scale stairs and negotiate the narrow passages common to urban warfare. Future operational 

capabilities include an interface that will allow the BEAR to be carried on the exterior of military vehicles, allowing 

the BEAR to be present and ready when needed. Current and planned payloads include casualty assessment and 

diagnostic instruments and chemical, biological agent, and IED detection systems. Four user-friendly OCUs have 

been developed by ARL and are being adapted by TATRC to the BEAR: (1) isometric controller grip mounted on 

front of M4 rifle to control robots with rifle in ready position; (2) instrumented glove (iGlove) tactile glove robot 

controller (can use hand and arm signals as do small unit infantry leaders); (3) tactile armband and belt (for feedback 

to operator); and (4) three-dimensional viewer.

Characteristics: 

BEAR 

Size 24 in wide × 10 in deep × 63 in tall at full height 

< 10 in tall at minimum height (“kneeling position”) 

Weight 240 lb 

Payload Capacity 500 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 6 hr of active use on battery; indefinite with solid oxide fuel cell and reformer 

Control JAUS, teleoperated, semi-autonomous 

Interoperability JAUS 

Mission Package Payloads Current: Casualty assessment and rescue 

Planned: Chemical/biological/nuclear agent and IED explosive detection 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 145 

B.21. Crusher Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle 

User Service: DARPA 

Manufacturer: Carnegie Mellon University, National Robotics Engineering Center 

Inventory: 2 

Status: NPOR

Background: The Crusher vehicle was 

designed by DARPA to be a prototype for the 

FCS armed reconnaissance vehicle, testing both 

mobility and autonomy systems. The platform 

has been integrated with several sensor types to 

enhance autonomous mobility and is used as a 

transition platform for other DARPA vehicle 

autonomy programs. Testing and 

experimentation are planned to continue through 

2007. 

Characteristics: 

Crusher 

Size 201 in long × 102 in wide × 60 in high 

Weight 13,200 lb 

Payload Capacity 8000 lb (includes armor) 

Performance: 

Top Speed 26 mph 

Slope >40° forward, >30° side 

Traversing Obstacles 4 ft step, 80 in trench 

Control RC, teleoperation, waypoint following, and full autonomy 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix B. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) 

Page 146 

B.22. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Unmanned Ground 

Reconnaissance (CUGR) UGV (CUGV) 

Service: Army 

Manufacturer: iRobot

Inventory: 4–5 Prototypes/2 Operational Units (95th Chemical Co) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The CUGR objective is to integrate CBRN 

sensors/detectors and chemical/biological air and surface sampling 

onto UGVs for demonstration and determination of military utility. 

The CUGV will then be integrated with the Joint Service Light 

Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance System (JSLNBCRS) 

to provide a total reconnaissance package capable of performing 

manned (JSLNBCRS) or unmanned (CUGV) reconnaissance 

operations. 

Characteristics:

CUGV 

Size 20.5 in × 33 in × 16 in (robot) 

18 in × 14.5 in × 8.75 in (OCU) 

Weight <120 lb robot, payloads, and OCU 

Payload Capacity 35 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 2–4 hr 

Control – Teleoperation 1000–2600 ft range 

Interoperability CREW, stand-alone system 

Mission Package Payloads Current: 

1) Chemical detection/identification 

 a) RAE Systems: Multi-RAE Plus 

 b) Smith’s Detection: LCD3.2E 

2) Radiological detection 

 a) Canberra: AN/UDR-14 

3) A sorbent tube sampling system was also integrated. The sampling 

system gives warfighters the ability to collect chemical vapors for later 

analysis or use as evidence. 

Future: 

1) Chemical detection/identification 

 a) CSD 

 b) ACADA * 

 c) JCAD * 

2) Biological detection/identification 

 a) DFU * 

 b) BAWS * 

3) Radiological detection 

 a) AN/UDR-13 Pocket RADIAC 

 b) ADM-300A multifunction survey meter 

 c) ADM 606M multipurpose radiation meter 

* Joint PM for NBC Contamination Avoidance
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 147 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

C.1. Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) 

C.1.1. Heavyweight UUVs 

C.1.1.1. Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) (AN/BLQ-11) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Boeing Advanced 

Information Systems 

Inventory: 1 Prototype System Delivered 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The LMRS is an autonomous 

UUV that was developed to conduct 

clandestine mine reconnaissance via highperformance forward-looking detection sonar 

and side-looking classification sonar. In 

August 2004, the LMRS program was 

refocused to demonstrate the ability of an 

autonomous UUV to be launched and recovered from a Los Angles class submarine using a two-torpedo-tube 

recovery method. Once launched, the UUVs can communicate data either acoustically or through satellite-linked 

RF communications to the submarine. Each LMRS system is reusable, autonomous, and self-propelled with 

navigation and control, communications, data processing, and obstacle avoidance capabilities. No future 

procurements are planned. 

Characteristics: 

LMRS 

Length 20 ft Draft/Operating Depth 40 ft minimum 

Diameter 1.75 ft Payload Capacity 5 ft3, 350 lb 

Displacement 2750 lb Energy Section Silver Zinc (Ag-Zn) or 

lithium thionyl chloride 

batteries 

Gross Weight 2720 lb maximum Delivery Platform Impulse launched (standard 

SSN torpedo tubes) 

Propulsion Type 2 hp electric motor, propeller 

driven 

Frequency(s) Classified 

Data Link(s) ACOMMs, RF communications, 

HDS, GPS 

 

Performance: 

Endurance 13 hr (AgZn) 

40+ hr (lithium) 

Maximum/Loiter Speeds 0–7 kt 

Maximum Operational Depth 1000 ft Mission Radius Classified 

Sensors Integrated navigation and DVL Recovery Method Torpedo tubes 

Mission Mine reconnaissance 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 148 

C.1.1.2. Mission Reconfigurable UUV System (MRUUVS) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 11 Systems and 31 Adjunct Vehicles Planned 

(system = 1 vehicle) 

Status: POR; SDD Phase Contract Award Scheduled for 

FY2009

Background: The MRUUVS is a 21-inch UUV, hosted 

from Los Angeles and Virginia class attack submarines 

(SSNs). (It is also envisioned for future hosting on LCSs 

and SSGNs.) The role of the MRUUVS is to perform ISR 

and MCM missions, through the use of off-board sensors, in 

areas that may be inaccessible to traditional platforms. The 

MRUUVS provides the Joint Forces Commander (JFC) 

with an unmanned, clandestine capability to perform these 

missions without disclosing operational intent or placing 

humans in a high-risk environment. Each MRUUVS is 

configured for a specific mission, either ISR or MCM. The ISR capability includes imagery and signals intelligence 

data collection capabilities; the MCM capability employs a bottom-looking synthetic aperture array and includes 

bottom and volume contact detection, classification, and localization as well as bathymetry. Common features 

include LOS and BLOS RF communications and ACOMMs, which enable in-stride data sharing and command and 

control. A forward-looking littoral precision underwater mapping (LPUMA) sonar is also common and performs 

functions such as obstacle avoidance, short-range ACOMMs, bathymetry, and bottom and volume contact mapping. 

As a submarine launched and recovered asset, the MRUUVS will complement the SSN’s stealth, mobility, and 

dwell time by extending its sensor reach. The MRUUVS will be capable of operating independently, with multiple 

vehicles deployed simultaneously, or in concert with a host/control node. During a sortie, the vehicle may 

communicate with the host/control node to provide in-stride data reports, data summaries, and health and status 

messages. The host/control node may also communicate with the MRUUV to issue updated sensor parameters and 

vehicle control commands. 

Characteristics: 

MRUUVS

Length 20 ft Draft/Operating Depth 40 ft minimum 

Diameter 1.75 ft Payload Capacity 5 ft3, 350 lb 

Displacement 3000 lb Delivery Platform SSN 688, 688I, 774 

standard torpedo tubes 

Propulsion Type 2–3 hp electric motor Energy Section Batteries 

Data Link(s) HF ACOMMs, 

RF communications 

Frequency(s) Classified 

Performance: 

Endurance 40–50 hr (primary battery) 

10–20 hr (renewable battery) 

MCM Area Coverage Classified 

Maximum Operational 

Depth 

Classified MCM Localization Accuracy Classified 

Sensors, ISR Electronics, communications, 

and imagery intelligence 

Radius Classified 

Sensors, MCM Synthetic aperture sonar array Maximum/Loiter Speeds 0–8 kt 

Sensors, Common LPUMA, integrated navigation 

and DVL 

Recovery Method External arm, 

undersea host vehicle 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 149 

C.1.1.3. Surface Mine Countermeasure (SMCM) UUV Increment 3 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 35 Systems Planned (2 vehicles and support equipment per system) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The SMCM UUV Increment 3 is the acquisition POR heavyweight class UUV for the LCS to detect 

buried and proud mines with high probability of detection and low false alarm rate. The SMCM UUV Increment 3 

has the capability to identify certain mines. SMCM UUV Increment 3 SDD begins in FY2008, and IOC and 

production approval should be achieved in FY2011. 

Characteristics: 

SMCM UUV Increment 3 

Length 18 ft Operating Depth 30–300 ft 

Gross Weight 1300 lb Delivery Platform LCS 

Diameter 1.75 ft Energy Source Lithium ion polymer batteries

Propulsion Type Direct-drive dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance: 

Endurance >16 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 3–5 kt 

Sensor(s) Low-frequency broadband 

synthetic aperture sonar, 

conductivity/temperature/depth, 

transmissometer, current profiler, 

bottom sediment profiler 

Recovery Method Surface 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 150 

C.1.1.4. Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (BPAUV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Bluefin Robotics Corp 

Inventory: 1 Delivered 

Status: POR 

Background: BPAUV vehicles have been employed in ONR Science and Technology experiments since 1999. 

BPAUV provides minehunting and Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace capability. The LCS BPAUV is a 

demonstration system to mitigate ship integration risk of heavyweight UUVs (especially launch and recovery). The 

BPAUV system consists of 2 vehicles, support equipment, spares, and a transportation van. The BPAUV system 

will be shipped and stored in a Seaframe Type 1 module. BPAUV has completed integration testing with the 

Unmanned Vehicle Management System (UVMS) command and control system. 

Characteristics: 

BPAUV 

Length 11 ft Batteries 2X 3.5 KWhr 

Lithium Ion Polymer 

Diameter 21" Data Link(s) Freewave HF 

Iridium SATCOM 

Vehicle Weight 750 lb 

Mission Module Weight 15,320 lb 

Performance: 

Endurance 18 hr Speed 3 kt 

Operating Depth 40-300 ft Sonar Klein 5400 

Launch and Recovery RHIB assisted crane Resolution 3" x 3" 

Environmental Data Gathering Bathymetry 

Conductivity/Temperature/Depth

Optical Backscatter 

Swath 150 m w 8% nadir gap 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 151 

C.1.1.5. Advanced Development UUV (ADUUV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin, Perry 

Technologies Division; LPUMA, Applied 

Research Laboratory, University of Texas. 

Inventory: 1 Prototype System Delivered 

Status: NPOR

Background: The ADUUV will be used as a key 

platform for technical risk reduction for the 

21-inch MRUUVS. The MRUUVS is a key 

element in implementing the Navy UUV Master 

Plan of 9 November 2004. 

Developing a single UUV capable of supporting a series of unrelated missions presents several technical risks. Prior 

to pursuing a formal acquisition program, the Navy must appropriately reduce risks relating to open system 

architecture, common system interfaces, autonomy, modularity, and reconfigurability. LPUMA imaging and use of 

the LPUMA design to facilitate robust homing and docking are additional key risk reduction areas that are required 

to meet the MRUUVS operational requirements. The ADUUV provides the platform to properly address key risks 

and support development of a technical data package for the MRUUVS program. No future procurements are 

planned. 

Characteristics: 

ADUUV 

Length 240 in Draft/Operating Depth 40/* ft 

Diameter 21 in Payload Capacity 5 ft3

Gross Weight 3000 lb maximum Energy Source Lead-acid secondary batteries

Propulsion Type 2–3 hp electric motor, 

propeller driven 

Delivery Platform Surface platform 

Data Link(s) RF ACOMMs Frequency (none) 

Performance: 

Endurance >2 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 8/3 kt 

Maximum Operational Depth TBD Radius ~ 8 nm 

Sensor(s) LPUMA Recovery Method Surface 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 152 

C.1.2. Lightweight Vehicles (LWVs) 

C.1.2.1. SMCM UUV Increment 1 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC, and Bluefin Robotics 

Inventory: 3 Vehicles and Support Equipment 

Status: NPOR 

Bluefin-12 Hydroid REMUS 100 

Background: The SMCM UUV Increment 1 is a user-operational evaluation system (UOES) employed by the 

Commander of the Naval Mine and Anti-submarine Warfare Command (CNMAWC) UUV Platoon from MCMs 

and crafts of opportunity. The SMCM UUV Increment 1 is being used to mitigate SMCM UUV program risk and to 

study MCM mission tactics, ship integration, and the human-system interface. 

The SMCM UUV Increment 1 was successfully employed during various exercises. These vehicles will be retired 

when Increment 2 systems are accepted and demonstrate reliable performance (second quarter FY2008). 

Characteristics: 

SMCM UUV Increment 1 

Length 4 ft (Hydroid) 

7 ft (Bluefin) 

Operating Depth 30–220 ft 

Gross Weight 80 lb (Hydroid) 

300 lb (Bluefin) 

Delivery Platform MCM-1 class and 

crafts of opportunity 

Diameter 0.63 ft (Hydroid) 

1.06 ft (Bluefin) 

Energy Source Lithium ion polymer batteries

Propulsion Type Linear-induction dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance: 

Endurance 8 hr (Hydroid) 

20 hr (Bluefin) 

Maximum/Loiter Speeds 3–5 kt (Hydroid) 

3 kt (Bluefin) 

Sensor(s) Marine sonics dual frequency 

real aperture sonar, 

conductivity/temperature/depth

Recovery Method Surface 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 153 

C.1.2.2. SMCM UUV Increment 2 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Bluefin Robotics 

Inventory: 3 Systems (2 vehicles per system) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The SMCM UUV Increment 2 is a UOES 

employed by the CNMAWC UUV Platoon from MCMs and crafts of opportunity. The SMCM UUV Increment 2 is 

being used to mitigate SMCM UUV program risk and to study MCM mission tactics, ship integration, and the 

human-system interface. The performance of the SMCM UUV Increment 2 will be evaluated to determine the 

effectiveness of dual-frequency synthetic aperture sonar at detecting buried mines and identifying targets with highresolution imagery. The SMCM UUV Increment 2 will provide high-resolution images at much greater range than 

the SMCM UUV Increment 1. These vehicles will be retired when SMCM UUV Increment 3 achieves IOC in 

FY2011. 

Characteristics: 

SMCM UUV Increment 2 

Length 11 ft Operating Depth 30–220 ft 

Gross Weight 550 lb Delivery Platform MCM-1 class and crafts of 

opportunity 

Diameter 1.06 ft Energy Source Lithium ion polymer batteries

Propulsion Type Linear-induction dc motor Data Link(s) Acoustic modem, WLAN, 

Iridium 

Performance: 

Endurance 12 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds 3–5 kt 

Sensor(s) Qinetiq dual-frequency synthetic 

aperture sonar, 

conductivity/temperature/depth, 

transmissometer, current profiler 

Recovery Method Surface 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 154 

C.1.3. Man-Portable UUVs 

C.1.3.1. MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH) Search-Classify-Map (S-C-M) UUV 

User Service: Naval Special Clearance Team ONE (NSCT ONE)/EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC 

Inventory: 3 Systems Delivered (NSCT ONE)/6 Systems Planned (EOD) 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The MK 18 MOD 1 SWORDFISH is part of the “toolbox approach” to equipping NSCT ONE and 

EOD forces. It is capable of performing low-visible exploration and reconnaissance in support of amphibious 

landing, MCM operations, and hydrographic mapping in the very shallow water (VSW) zone (10 to 40 feet of 

seawater (FSW)) and the seaward approaches. It is small (two-person portable), has a low unit cost (so that 

inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic), and is deliverable via multiple platforms. The production decision was 

reached 27 July 2005. IOC was reached in January 2007 following first article test in December 2006. Full 

operational capability was reached in May 2007, following delivery of the second and third of three systems to 

NSCT ONE. Additional systems will be used to establish a preliminary operational capability and for evaluation of 

Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) supportability at EOD units. It is capable of navigating via 

acoustic transponders in long-baseline or ultra-short-baseline mode or via P-coded GPS. Upward- and downwardlooking acoustic digital velocity log improves dead-reckoning accuracy. Onboard sensors include water turbidity, 

water temperature and conductivity, side-scan sonar, and downward-looking camera. 

Characteristics:

MK 18 MOD 1 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–40 FSW (300 ft maximum) 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb maximum Energy Source 1 kWh Li-ion battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller Frequency (acoustic) 900 kHz sonar, 1200 kHz DVL 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet 

Performance:

Contact Localization Accuracy 49 ft 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Mines as Mine-like 0.80 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Non-mine-like as Mine-like 0.20 @ A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.80 

Interoperability 100% of top-level IERs designated critical 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 155 

C.1.3.2. Reacquisition-Identification (R-I) UUV 

User Service: NSCT ONE/EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC 

Inventory: 0 Systems Delivered/3 Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: Potentially a variant of the MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH), the R-I UUV will be modified to provide 

higher resolution imagery than the SWORDFISH system currently fielded for the S-C-M mission. The R-I UUV 

will provide the capability to perform mine reacquisition, limited area search, and mine identification to a high level 

of confidence, in support of amphibious landing, MCM operations, and hydrographic mapping in the VSW zone 

(10 to 40 FSW). The system will remain a small, two-person portable vehicle with relatively low cost so that 

inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic. The R-I UUV will be interoperable with the S-C-M UUV, MK 8 

Marine Mammal System, and Underwater Imaging System. Formal mine warfare tactics to address non-optic-based 

mine identification will be developed. A new generation dual-frequency (900/1800 kHz) side-scan sonar is being 

evaluated for potential to reach R-I capability. A production decision is anticipated for fourth quarter FY2007 with 

IOC planned for first quarter FY2009 and full operational capability anticipated for second quarter FY2009. 

Characteristics: 

R-I UUV 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–40 FSW 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb (2-person portable) Energy Source Li-polymer battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller Frequency (acoustic) TBD900/1800 kHz sonar 1200 kHz DVL 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet 

Performance:

Probability of Reacquiring and Identifying Mines ≥ 0.85 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Identifying Mines as Mines and Non-mines as Non-mines ≥ 0.80 @ A-1 Bottom 

Probability of Detecting and Classifying Non-mine-like as Mine-like ≤ 0.2 @ A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.90 (80% confidence factor) 

Interoperability 100% of top-level IERs designated critical 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 156 

C.1.3.3. Bottom UUV Localization System (BULS) 

User Service: EOD 

Manufacturer: Hydroid, LLC (preliminary operational capability system) and TBD (IOC/FOC system) 

Inventory: 0 Production Systems Delivered/6 Production Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: BULS is part of the “toolbox approach” to equipping EOD forces via spiral development of UUVs. 

It will be capable of detecting and localizing threat objects on the seafloor of harbors and open areas and will 

support MCM operations from 10 to 300 feet. The system is small (two-person portable) with a low unit cost so that 

inadvertent loss is not mission-catastrophic. It will be deployable via multiple platforms and from shore. The 

program is leveraging a previous, limited-deployment capability UUV and the S-C-M UUV program, and it has 

provided UOES to two operational units for use in tactics development and requirements and in specification 

refinement. Two MK 18 MOD 1 (SWORDFISH) systems (perhaps upgraded from the current configuration) will 

be fielded in fourth quarter FY2007 to establish a preliminary operational capability at NSCT ONE and MDSU 

TWO. An additional MK 18 MOD 1 will be provided to EODMU EIGHT in second quarter FY2008 as an 

OCONUS UOES to evaluate overseas basing issues. Current UOES configuration includes dual-frequency sidescan sonar, enhanced navigation [GPS, INS, ultra-short baseline (USBL)], low-light CCD camera, and enhanced 

ACOMMs. IOC is anticipated in second quarter FY2009, and full operational capability is anticipated for first 

quarter FY2011. Future spirals are envisioned to support more complex capabilities, such as detailed intelligence 

gathering and chemical and biological detection. 

Characteristics (latest UOES configuration): 

BULS 

Vehicle Size 7.5 in diameter × 62 in long Operating Depth 10–300 ft 

Vehicle Weight 94 lb maximum Energy Source 1 kWh Li-ion battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy Adjustable 0–45 ppt Delivery Platform Various small boats 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller Frequency (acoustic) 900/1800 kHz sonar, 1200 kHz DVL 

Data Link RS-232/USB/Ethernet 

Performance:

Contact Localization Accuracy ≤ 20 m 

Probability of Detection/Classification ≥ 0.75 (MK 81 size & >), A-1 Bottom 

Reliability 0.85 w/ 80% confidence factor 

ACR 0.04 nm2/hr 

Net Ready 100% of interfaces designated as critical in BULS integrated architecture 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 157 

C.1.3.4. Hull UUV Localization System (HULS) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: TBD 

Inventory: 0 Systems Delivered/7–15 Systems Planned 

Status: NPOR 

Background: HULS will be a relatively low-cost, two-person portable system with a small shipboard logistic 

footprint and will be capable of being deployed and recovered from a small boat and from shore. The program will 

leverage a previous Defense Acquisition Challenge Program and limited-deployment capability effort as well as 

developmental programs by NAVAIR and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division. The purpose of 

HULS is to decrease the operational timeline and reduce personnel hazards associated with searching ship hulls, 

piers, pilings, and other underwater structures. It will be interoperable with the diver hull inspection navigation 

system. A competitive acquisition of a prototype first-generation system is currently in process. IOC is planned for 

FY2012. A spiral acquisition process for successively adding capability is planned over ensuing years. Long-term, 

end-state capability is envisioned to support both search and in-situ neutralization of limpet mines and underwater 

IEDs. 

Characteristics (anticipated IOC system): 

HULS 

Vehicle Size TBD Operating Depth Surface to 200 ft 

Vehicle Weight 100 lb maximum Energy Source TBD 

Vehicle Displacement TBD Delivery Platform Various small boats and shore 

Propulsion Type TBD Frequency (acoustic) TBD 

Data Link TBD 

Performance (anticipated IOC system):

Probability of Detection ≥ 0.85 @ 80% confidence (9 in diameter × 4.5 in high cylinder) 

Probability of Classification/Identification ≥ 0.85 @ 80% confidence (9 in diameter × 4.5 in high cylinder) 

Contact Localization Accuracy 3 ft SEP 

Hull Search Rate 398 ft2/min 

Reliability 0.90 @ 80% confidence 

Availability 90% 

Maintainability 5 hr MCMTOMF 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 158 

C.1.3.5. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP) – VSW Neutralization 

1st Generation – UUV – Neutralization (UUV-N) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Atlas Elektronik 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: This effort is intended to field unmanned systems to support the MCM mission at NSCT ONE in 

order to get the warfighter out of the minefield and to reacquire and neutralize previously identified mines in the 

VSW zone. Tactical integration will be achieved with the S-C-M and R-I UUVs. Concept employs a guided small 

torpedo design with directed energy shape charge neutralizer; reacquisition using forward-looking sonar; and closedcircuit television camera for target prosecution and firing decision. The DACP effort will adapt an airborne mine 

countermeasures (AMCM) neutralizer from current inventory for deployment from a small boat. Far-term 

NSCT ONE requirement for extended station keeping, standoff command detonation, and autonomous 

neutralization will affect ability to use common neutralizer form factor to meet the end-state requirement. An 

integrated technology development strategy will be initiated between PMS-EOD, PMS 495, and ONR to address this 

issue. IOC is anticipated during third quarter FY2016. 

Characteristics (DACP system): 

UUV-N 

System Size TBD Operating Depth 10–40 FSW 

System Weight TBD (2-person portable) Energy Source Li-polymer battery 

Vehicle Buoyancy TBD Delivery Platform Various small boat 

Propulsion Type Electric motor/propeller Frequency (acoustic) 675/975 kHz sonar 

Data Link Fiber optic tether 

Performance:

Neutralization Effectiveness 0.72 Availability 0.85 

Reliability 0.90 Target Types Bottom influence mines 

CRRC Deployment 

Craft 

Torpedo GPS 

transit 

Positive identification &

neutralization solution 

obtained with sensors 

•Neutralize 4 bottom contacts per 

sortie in 10 to 40 ft 

•Deploy IAW CATF intentions, all 

detonations completed by H-2 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 159 

C.2. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) 

C.2.1. Fleet Class USVs 

C.2.1.1. SPARTAN 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The SPARTAN SCOUT ACTD program aims at demonstrating USVs as a realistic and low-cost 

force multiplier that could address joint warfighting needs in the increasing complex and contested littorals. Within 

that program, France is specifically developing the ASW mission module. Thales Underwater Systems has been 

selected to provide and integrate the FLASH dipping sonar on board the USV. Eventually, the potential applications 

of the ASW SPARTAN in the field of ASW and amphibious operations in littoral waters are envisioned. 

Characteristics: 

SPARTAN 

Length 36 ft Draft/Operating Depth 200 ft 

Gross Weight 3690 lb Payload Capacity TBD 

Displacement TBD Energy Source Primary electrical power 

Propulsion Type TBD Delivery Platform TBD 

Data Link(s) UHF/VHF uplink with Ethernet 

host for command and status 

Frequency 4 kHz for the FLASH 

Performance: 

Endurance 8 hr Maximum/Loiter Speeds TBD 

Draft 3 ft Radius 9 nm 

Sensor(s) TBD Recovery Method At sea, tilt rail 

Mission(s) ISR, force protection, RSTA, 

precision strike, and littoral mine 

warfare and ASW missions 

 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 160 

C.2.1.2. Unmanned Sea Surface Vehicle (USSV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Maritime Applied Physics, Corp. 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: The ONR has designed and built two prototype USSVs: one optimized for high tow force (USSVHTF) and one optimized for high speed (USSV-HS). These vehicles were designed from a clean sheet of paper to 

support littoral missions. The USSV-HTF design will be used as a prototype on the LCS. Besides high tow force, 

the USSV-HTF is designed to have a high payload capacity and long endurance. The USSV-HS is optimized for 

high speed and to maintain its top speed in rough water. The vehicles were designed by Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Carderock Division, and they were built by the Maritime Applied Physics Corporation of Baltimore, 

Maryland. The two prototypes are being used to test various technologies including autonomous control, advanced 

payloads, advanced power systems, and L&R. The results of these tests will be incorporated into the specifications 

of the future production vehicles. 

Characteristics: 

 USSV-HTF USSV-HS 

Length 39 ft 36 ft 

Full-Load Displacement 18,000 lb 21,000 lb 

Lightship Displacement 9050 lb 15,000 lb 

Hullform Semi-planing monohull Hydrofoil 

Engines Twin diesel Twin diesel 

USSV-HS USSV-HTF
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 161 

C.2.1.3. Mine Warfare (MIW) USV 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Oregon Iron Works 

Inventory: TBD (24 plus planned) 

Status: NPOR

Background: The MIW USV is a modified repeat 

design of the ONR’s USSV-HTF. The boat has 

been designed as the platform for a towed 

influence sweep system used to clear minefields. 

The MIW USV is also being designed to interface 

with both types of LCS. The boat deploys from 

LCS and transits to the minefield. Upon arrival, it 

deploys the combined magnetic/acoustic influence 

sweep from a winch located in the payload bay, 

and commences mine sweeping operations in up to 

Sea State 3. This is one of the Navy’s systems 

designed to “get the man out of the minefield.” 

The MIW USV was designed by the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Carderock Division, and as of July 2007 is in construction at Oregon Iron Works. The influence 

sweep/boat integration will continue to be refined over the next few years. 

Characteristics: 

 MIW USV 

Length 39 ft 

Full-Load Displacement 22,500 lb 

Payload 4000 lb without fuel 

Hullform Semi-planing monohull 

Engines Twin diesel (540 mph each) 

Tow 2500 lb @ 25 knots 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 162 

C.2.1.4 ASW USV 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: General Dynamics 

Robotics Systems (GDRS) 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR

Background: The LCS ASW USV 

Indicative Design has demonstrated 

36 feet USV in operation at sea on test 

range and in forward areas in the 

western Pacific. The 36 feet platform 

has demonstrated ability to deploy and 

operate the unmanned dipping sonar 

(UDS), the USV Towed Array System 

(UTAS), and the multi-static off-board 

source (MS-OBS). Although the 

objective for Sea State 4 operation has 

yet to be proven in at-sea test, the 

threshold requirement requires 

operation in seas only up to Sea State 3. 

The transition to Engineering 

Development Model (EDM) has begun 

with the contract award to GDRS on March 2006. Delivery to LCS is targeted for March 2008. Additional risk 

reduction tests were conducted in summer 2006, and final system certification is scheduled for 2008. 

The Government’s EDM is based on open ocean racing and RHIB high-speed vehicles technology that can be fitted 

with modular ASW payloads and operated remotely. The core subsystems will include surface search radar and 

advanced communications. The surface search radar, required for navigation, can also detect incoming threats. 

USV is capable of extended-duration (24+ hours) operations with a high-payload (5000 pounds) capacity supporting 

multiple mission sensor systems enabling high-speed transits (35+ knots) to operational areas. 

Characteristics: 

USV ASW 

Length 40 ft Beam 11.2 ft 

Max Wt (w/o payload): 

 Lightship 

 Load ready 

17,248 lb 

21,120 lb 

(includes 1096 lb margins; 

2288 lb fuel for MS-OBS 

24-hr mission) 

Deck Space Compliant with ASW payload 

requirements, interfaces 

coordinated with ASW 

payloads 

Payload 5000 lb 

Performance: 

Towing 1600 lb/20 kt 

18 Disclosure of the information on this page is subject to the notice on the title slide.

ASW Payload Configurations

MS-OBS

UTAS

UDS

Deployed
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 163 

C.2.2. Snorkeler Class USVs 

C.2.2.1. AN/WLD-1 Remote Multi-mission Vehicle (RMMV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin 

Inventory: 2 Delivered/106 Planned (10 LRIP and 96 production) 

Status: POR 

Background: The AN/WLD-1(V) RMMV is a high-endurance, radio-controlled, low-observable unmanned vehicle 

that will be operated and maintained from surface ships. A semi-submersible vessel, the RMMV tows a variabledepth sensor body to the operations area where mine reconnaissance data will be collected, recorded, and 

transmitted to the host ship. The RMMV provides propulsion, hotel services, navigation, and a cable connection for 

exchanging tactical data with the towed body and the host ship. Data are continuously exchanged between the host 

platform and the RMMV for command and control and sensor data. The system is capable of LOS and OTH 

operations. The RMMV uses a modified AN/AQS-20 variable-depth sonar body for detection, classification, and 

localization of mine-like contacts and mine identification. 

Characteristics: 

RMV 

Length 23 ft Draft/Surfaced 6 ft 10 in 

Height 22 ft Draft/Submerged 14 ft 10 in 

Weight 14,000 lb Data Link(s) UHF LOS – data and video 

VHF OTH – data and video 

Propulsion Type 370B Cummins marine 

diesel engine 

Frequencies 1.7–2.0 GHz (LOS) 

30–40 MHz (OTH) 

Fuel Capacity 289 gal Delivery Platform DDG/LCS 

Tow Cable Capacity 1800 ft Sensor AN/AQS-20A 

Performance: 

Mission(s) Mine reconnaissance Sortie Endurance * hr 

Water Depth * ft Command and Control Range * nm 

Mine Localization ≤ 50 yd Sensor Data Range * nm 

Transit Speed 16 kt Sea State 3 

Mine Reconnaissance Speed ≥ 8 kt Mission Recording Capacity ≥ 24 hr 

* Indicates classified values. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 164 

C.2.3. Harbor Class USVs 

C.2.3.1. Protector (7-M Harbor Class USV) 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin, BAE, and 

RAFAEL 

Inventory: 0 

Status: NPOR

Background: The Protector is an integrated naval 

combat system, based on unmanned, autonomous, 

remote-controlled surface vehicles. Highly 

maneuverable and stealthy, the Protector can 

conduct a wide spectrum of critical missions while 

eliminating unnecessary risk to personnel and 

capital assets. 

The Protector’s antiterror mission module payload 

includes sensors and weapon systems. The search 

radar and the Toplite electro-optical pod serve for detection, identification, and targeting. The weapon systems are 

based on RAFAEL’s Typhoon remote-controlled, stabilized weapon station, which is capable of operating various 

small caliber guns. The stabilized weapon station is highly accurate and yields excellent hit-and-kill probability. 

The Protector is mission reconfigurable through its plug-and-play design, allowing utilization of various mission 

modules, such as force protection, antiterror surveillance and reconnaissance, mine warfare, electronic warfare, and 

precision strikes. The Protector USV is jointly developed with Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd. 

Characteristics & Performance: 

Protector 

Length 30–36 ft 

Propulsion Water jet 

Engine Diesel 

Speed 40 kt 

Payload 2200 lb 

Payload Forward-looking infrared: 

CCD camera (black-and-white or color), 

eye safe laser rangefinder, 

laser designator (optional), 

advanced correlation tracker 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix C. Unmanned Maritime Systems (UMSs) 

Page 165 

C.2.4. X Class USVs 

C.2.4.1. X Class USV 

User Service: Navy 

Manufacturer: Various 

Inventory: TBD 

Status: NPOR 

Background: This class of USVs includes small and experimental systems (see Navy’s USV Master Plan). There 

are currently no existing acquisition programs in this class, but a number of prototypes and technology 

demonstration models have been built. The primary mission need for this class is the support of SOF conducting 

missions in riverine-type environments. In these types of missions, stealth, modularity, expendability, light weight, 

and low cost are critical. Support of maritime interdiction operations is also an application for X Class USVs. 

Characteristics & Performance: 

X-Class Unmanned Surface Vehicle 

Maximum Size 10 ft Endurance Up to several hours with a 

limited payload capacity 

Deployability From a 36-ft RHIB or CRRC 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix D. Unmanned Systems Points of Contact 

Page 166 

Appendix D. Unmanned Systems Points of Contact 

Acquisition Management Laboratories 

OSD DARPA 

OUSD(AT&L) Portfolio Systems Acquisition 

3090 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-3090 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ds/sa/index.html

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

3701 North Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203-1714 

http ://www.darpa.mil/index.html

Product Manager, Army UAS ARL 

PM Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Redstone Arsenal 

Huntsville, AL 35801 

https://www.peoavn.army.mil/pm/UAS.shtml

Army Research Laboratory 

2800 Powder Mill Rd 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197 

http://www.arl.army.mil

Marine Corps MCWL 

Marine Corp Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) 

2200 Lester Street 

Quantico, VA 22134 

http ://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory 

3255 Meyers Avenue 

Quantico, VA 22134 

http ://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/

Navy UAS NRL 

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 

PMA-263 Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation 

47123 Buse Road; Building 2272, Room 254 

Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547 

http://uav.navair.navy.mil/ 

U.S. Naval Research Lab 

4555 Overlook Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20375 

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/

Air Force AFRL 

Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) 

Public Affairs Office, 1865 Fourth Street, Room 240 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433 

http://ascpublic.wpafb.af.mil/ 

Air Force Research Laboratory 

1864 Fourth Street 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-7132 

http://www.afrl.af.mil/ 

Robotic Systems Joint Project Office Robotics Research Group 

Program Executive Office (PEO) 

Ground Combat Systems RS JPO 

Attn: SFAE-GCS-UGV 

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-8060 

http://www.redstone.army.mil/ugvsjpo/

USAF Research Laboratory 

AFRL/MLQF 

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 

Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 

http://www.afrl.af.mil

Product Manager, 

Robotic and Unmanned Sensors 

Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering 

Center 

PM-RUS 

SFAE-IEW&S-NV-RUS 

Building 423 

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 

https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/

IEWS_Public/rus/

Program Manager, TARDEC 

6501 E. Eleven Mile Road 

AMSTA-TR-R 

MS#263 (Intelligent Mobility); MS#264 (CAT; Vehtronics) 

Warren, MI 48397-5000 

http://tardec.army.mil

Product Manager, 

Force Protection Systems 

Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering 

Center (AMRDEC) 

PM-FPS 

ATTN: SFAE-CSS-ME-P 

5900 Putman Road, Suite 1 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5420 

http ://www.pm-fps.army.mil 

CDR, USA AMCOM 

Attn: AMSOM-OSA-UG 

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 

http://www.redstone.army.mil/amrdec/ 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix D. Unmanned Systems Points of Contact 

Page 167 

Littoral and Mine Warfare NSWC Panama City 

Program Executive Office, LMW 

1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE 

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376 

Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City 

110 Vernon Avenue 

Panama City, FL 32407-7001 

http://www.ncsc.navy.mil/ 

Naval EOD Technology Division Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center 

NAVEODTECHDIV 

2008 Stump Neck Road 

Indian Head, MD 20640-5070 

https://naveodtechdiv.jeodnet.mil/ 

Commander, SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC) 

53560 Hull Street 

San Diego, CA 92152-5001 

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego 

NSWC Dahlgren ONR 

Commander Dahlgren Division 

Naval Surface Warfare Center 

17320 Dahlgren Road 

Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100 

http ://www.nswc.navy.mil/wwwDL/ 

Office of Naval Research 

875 North Randolph Street 

Suite 1425 

Arlington, VA 22203-1995 

http ://www.onr.navy.mil/

NSWC Carderock NUWC Keyport

Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Carderock Division 

9500 MacArthur Blvd. 

West Bethesda, MD 20817 

www.boats.dt.navy.mil

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

610 Dowell Street 

Keyport, WA 98345-7610 

http://www-keyport.kpt.nuwc.navy.mil

Joint UAS Center of Excellence Unmanned Maritime Vehicle Systems Program Office

Creech AFB 

Indian Springs, NV 89018 

https://wwwd.my.af.mil/afknprod/ASPs/CoP/OpenCoP.asp

?Filter=OO-OT-AF-83

(PMS 403) 

1333 Isaac Hull avenue, SE 

Washington Navy Yard DC 20376

NUWC USAMRMC TATRC 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

1176 Howell St. 

Newport, RI 02841 

http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/npt/

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Telemedicine 

and Advanced Technology Research Center 

ATTN: MCMR-ZB-T, 504 Scott St. 

Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012 

USAARL 

U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory 

PO Box 620577 

Fort Rucker, AL 36362-0577 

AFDD/AMRDEC/RDECOM/AMC 

U.S. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate 

M/S 219-3, Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 168 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Air Warfare – (AFDD 2-1) Military operations conducted by airplanes, helicopters, or other 

aircraft against aircraft or targets on the ground and in the water. Air warfare is a set of offensive 

and defensive aerial operations carried out using the Air Force with the intention of imposing 

one’s will on the adversary by achieving a sufficient degree of aerial superiority. 

Battle Management 

Management – The process of directing all or part of an organization through the 

deployment and manipulation of resources (human, financial, material, intellectual, or 

intangible). 

Battle – A set of related engagements that last longer and involve larger forces than an 

engagement. Battles can affect the course of a campaign or major operation. An 

engagement is a small tactical conflict between opposing maneuver forces, usually 

conducted at brigade level and below. Engagements are usually short: minutes, hours, or 

a day (FM 3-0). 

CASEVAC (Casualty Evacuation) – (JP 1-02) The unregulated movement of casualties in 

nondedicated combat vehicles or aircraft that can include movement both to and between 

medical treatment facilities. 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) Reconnaissance 

Reconnaissance – (JP1-02) A mission undertaken to obtain, by visual observation or 

other detection methods, information about the activities and resources of an enemy or 

potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological, hydrographic, or 

geographic characteristics of a particular area (in this case, chemical or biological 

agents). 

Combat Search and Rescue – (JP1-02) A specific task performed by rescue forces to effect the 

recovery of distressed personnel during war or military operations other than war. 

Communication/Navigation Network Node (CN3)

Communications Network – (JP1-02) An organization of stations capable of 

intercommunications, but not necessarily on the same channel. 

Node – (JP1-02) In communications and computer systems, the physical location that 

provides terminating, switching, and gateway access services to support information 

exchange. (JP6-0) 

Communications/Data Relay – The ability to increase the time systems/personnel are in 

communication with higher echelons, each other, etc., and to improve the amount of data that 

can be transferred. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 169 

Counter Camouflage/Concealment/Deception – (JP1-02) 

Counter(measures) – The form of military science that, by the employment of devices 

and/or techniques, has as its objective the impairment of the operational effectiveness of 

enemy activity. 

Camouflage – The use of natural or artificial material on personnel, objects, or tactical 

positions with the aim of confusing, misleading, or evading the enemy. 

Concealment – The protection from observation or surveillance. 

Counterdeception – Efforts to negate, neutralize, diminish the effects of, or gain 

advantage from, a foreign deception operation. Counterdeception does not include the 

intelligence function of identifying foreign deception operations. 

Covert Sensor Insertion – (JP1-02) An operation (in this case, sensor insertion) that is planned 

and executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. A covert 

operation differs from a clandestine operation in that emphasis is placed on concealment of 

sponsor identity rather than on concealment of the operation. 

Decoy/Pathfinder – (JP1-02) 

Decoy – An imitation in any sense of a person, object, or phenomenon that is intended to 

deceive enemy surveillance devices or mislead enemy evaluation. 

Pathfinder – 1. Experienced aircraft crews who lead a formation to the drop zone, 

release point, or target. 2. Teams dropped or air landed at an objective to establish and 

operate navigational aids for the purpose of guiding aircraft to drop and landing zones. 

3. A radar device used for navigating or homing to an objective when visibility precludes 

accurate visual navigation. 4. Teams air delivered into enemy territory for the purpose 

of determining the best approach and withdrawal lanes, landing zones, and sites for 

helicopter-borne forces. 

Electronic Warfare – (JP1-02) Any military action involving the use of electromagnetic and 

directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy. The three major 

subdivisions within electronic warfare are electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic 

warfare support. 

Electronic Attack – The division of electronic warfare involving the use of 

electromagnetic energy, directed energy, or antiradiation weapons to attack personnel, 

facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy 

combat capability. Electronic attack is considered a form of fires. 

Electronic Protection – The division of electronic warfare involving passive and active 

means taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any effects of friendly or 

enemy employment of electronic warfare that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly 

combat capability. 

Electronic Warfare Support – The division of electronic warfare involving actions 

tasked by, or under direct control of, an operational commander to search for, intercept, 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 170 

identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional radiated 

electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, 

planning, and conduct of future operations. Thus, electronic warfare support provides 

information required for decisions involving electronic warfare operations and other 

tactical actions such as threat avoidance, targeting, and homing. 

EOD/IED Defeat 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) – (JP1-02) The detection, identification, on-site 

evaluation, rendering safe, recovery, and final disposal of unexploded explosive 

ordnance. It may also include explosive ordnance that has become hazardous by damage 

or deterioration. 

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) – (JP1-02) A device placed or fabricated in an 

improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary 

chemicals and designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract. It may incorporate 

military stores, but is normally devised from nonmilitary components. (JP3-07.2) 

Firefighting – The act of carrying out procedures to extinguish an unwanted fire. Firefighting 

may require evacuation (removal of personnel from a dangerous area, in particular, a hazardous 

material incident, burning building, or other emergency) and recovery (location and removal of 

deceased victims). Also, the time needed for a firefighter to spend in rehabilitation before being 

considered ready to continue working the incident. 

Force Protection – (JP1-02) Actions taken to prevent or mitigate hostile actions against 

Department of Defense personnel (to include family members), resources, facilities, and critical 

information. Force protection does not include actions to defeat the enemy or protect against 

accidents, weather, or disease. (JP3-07.2) 

GPS Pseudolite – Ground-based transmitters that mimic a global positioning system satellite. 

GPS pseudolite is intended to improve geometric solutions in a local area and could be used 

around airports for precision instrument landings. 

Information Warfare (Operations) – (JP1-02) The integrated employment of the core 

capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, 

military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related 

capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision 

making while protecting friendly forces. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) – (JP1-02) An activity that synchronizes 

and integrates the planning and operation of sensors, assets, and processing, exploitation, and 

dissemination systems in direct support of current and future operations. This activity is an 

integrated intelligence and operations function. (JP2-01) 

Littoral Warfare – (JP1-02) A battlespace that is composed of two segments: Seaward, the area 

from the open ocean to the shore, which must be controlled to support operations ashore, and 

landward, the area inland from the shore that can be supported and defended directly from the 

sea. 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 171 

Logistics – The science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces. 

In its most comprehensive sense, logistics includes the aspects of military operations that deal 

with the following: 

3⁄4 Design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, 

evacuation, and disposition of materiel; 

3⁄4 Movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel; 

3⁄4 Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities; and 

3⁄4 Acquisition or furnishing of services. (JP 1-02) 

Medical logistics is a subset of the above definition, i.e., the science of planning and carrying out 

the movement and maintenance of medical forces. In its most comprehensive sense, medical 

logistics includes the aspects of military operations that deal with the following: 

3⁄4 Design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, 

evacuation, and disposition of medical materiel; 

3⁄4 Movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel; 

3⁄4 Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of medical facilities; 

and 

3⁄4 Acquisition or furnishing of medical services. 

MEDEVAC – Medical evacuation in dedicated combat medical evacuation vehicles or aircraft. 

(JP 1-02) 

Meteorological/Oceanography/Digital Mapping 

Meteorological and Oceanographic – (JP1-02) A phrase used to convey all 

meteorological (weather) and oceanographic (physical oceanography) factors as provided 

by Military Department components. These factors include the whole range of 

atmospheric and oceanographic phenomena, from the sub-bottom of the earth’s oceans up 

to the space environment (space weather). (JP3-59) 

Mapping – The function of creating visualization tools for spatial data. Current trends 

are moving away from analog methods of mapmaking toward the creation of increasingly 

dynamic, interactive maps that can be manipulated digitally. 

Mine Detection, Countermeasures, and Destruction 

Mine Detection – The ability to detect various types of explosives, distinguish them from 

background clutter, and detect mines regardless of shape, depth of burial, or type of 

casing. Mine detection is to be accomplished at a good standoff distance with a detection 

probability of almost 100% and a near-zero false-negative alarm rate, at an acceptable 

operational speed, and preferably with a viewing (imaging) capability. 

Countermeasures – (JP1-02) All methods for preventing or reducing damage or danger 

from mines. (JP3-15) 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 172 

Obstacle (Placement) – (JP1-02) (Placement of) Any obstruction designed or employed to 

disrupt, fix, turn, or block the movement of an opposing force and to impose additional losses in 

personnel, time, and equipment on the opposing force. Obstacles can be natural, manmade, or a 

combination of both. (JP3-15) 

Precision Target Location and Designation 

Precision –The closeness with which repeated measurements made under similar 

conditions are grouped together. 

Target Location – A location defined by coordinates. With advancements in systems, 

the traditional role (previously used only as a “cueing” device to get weapon systems into 

the proper area) of the coordinate has changed. Targets that are not precisely and 

accurately located mean higher warhead and sortie costs. While cartographic techniques 

of deriving coordinates are suitable for supporting the “cueing” function, they cannot 

provide the precise coordinates needed for many of the newer weapon systems. 

Target Designation – The indication of a target for destruction. 

Psychological Operations – (JP1-02) Planned operations to convey selected information and 

indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and 

ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The 

purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior 

favorable to the originator’s objectives. 

Reconnaissance – (JP1-02) A mission undertaken to obtain, by visual observation or other 

detection methods, information about the activities and resources of an enemy or potential enemy 

or to secure data concerning the meteorological, hydrographic, or geographic characteristics of a 

particular area. Also called RECON. 

Seabasing – (JP1-02) In amphibious operations, a technique of basing certain landing force 

support functions aboard ship to decrease a shore-based presence. 

Signals Intelligence – (JP1-02) 1. A category of intelligence comprising either individually or 

in combination all communications intelligence, electronic intelligence, and foreign 

instrumentation signals intelligence, however transmitted. 2. Intelligence derived from 

communications, electronic signals, and foreign instrumentation signals. 

Strike – (JP1-02) An attack that is intended to inflict damage on, seize, or destroy an objective. 

Special Operations Forces (SOF) (Support to) – (JP1-02) (Support to) Operations conducted 

in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, 

informational, and/or economic objectives and employing military capabilities for which there is 

no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or 

low-visibility capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military 

operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of 

conventional forces or other Government agencies and may include operations through, with, or 

by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special operations differ from conventional operations in 

degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence 
Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 

Appendix E. Mission Area Definitions 

Page 173 

from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous 

assets. 

Resupply – The act of replenishing stocks in order to maintain required levels of supply. 

Surface Warfare – (JP1-02) Maritime warfare in which operations are conducted to destroy or 

neutralize enemy naval surface forces and merchant vessels. (JP3-33) 

Target Designation – (JP3-60) Effective targeting is the ability to generate the type and extent 

of effects necessary to achieve the commander’s objectives. Identification of centers of gravity 

(COGs) and decisive points (DPs) is essential to achieving the commander’s objectives in 

accordance with guidance and intent through Joint Forces efforts. There normally will be more 

DPs in an operational area than the commander can control, destroy, or neutralize with available 

resources. Accordingly, planners must analyze potential DPs and determine which points enable 

eventual attack of the adversary’s COGs. 

Center of Gravity (COG) – The characteristics, capabilities, or sources of power from 

which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight. 

Decisive Point (DP) – A geographic place, specific key event, or critical system or 

function that allows commanders to gain a marked advantage over an enemy and greatly 

influence the outcome of an attack. 

Targeting – (JP1-02) (DoD) The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the 

appropriate response to them while taking account of operational requirements and capabilities. 

Target Services (Acquisition) – (JP1-02) The detection, identification, and location of a target 

in sufficient detail to permit the effective employment of weapons. 

Also Target Analysis – An examination of potential targets to determine military 

importance, priority of attack, and weapons required to obtain a desired level of damage 

or casualties. 

Undersea Warfare – (JP1-02) (DoD) Operations conducted to establish battlespace dominance 

in the underwater environment. Such dominance permits friendly forces to accomplish the full 

range of potential missions and denies an opposing force the effective use of underwater systems 

and weapons. It includes offensive and defensive submarine, antisubmarine, and mine warfare 

operations. 

Weaponization – The process of using something as, making something into, or causing 

something to change into a weapon or a potential weapon. 

Weapons Delivery – The process of transporting a weapon. A weapon is a tool that is intended 

to or is used to injure, kill, or incapacitate a person; damage or destroy property; or otherwise 

render resources nonfunctional or unavailable. Weapons may be used to attack and defend and 

consequently also to threaten or protect.