Two recent reports are reminders of the scope of the coming unmanned system tsunami. First, the Air Force released its Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Flight Plan 2009-2047. Lt. Gen. David Deptula's ISR directorate is leading this planning effort, which will have implications for every aspect of the Air Force for the next several decades (click here for a transcript of his recent presentation at the Pentagon). Slides 15-20 of the UAS flight plan display the Air Force's ambition to dominate UAS activity from nano-sized vehicles through large cargo-sized aircraft. The presentation also indicates the Air Force's awareness that unmanned systems will transform its doctrine, training, and culture.
The U.S. Navy hired RAND to study its plans for unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). RAND studied the Navy's list of possible missions for UUVs and compared those to the near-term prospects for UUV technology (click here for the RAND report). RAND recommended that the Navy pursue UUV development in seven mission categories: mine countermeasures, leave-behind sensor deployment, harbor monitoring, oceanography, undersea infrastructure, identification/inspection, and anti-submarine warfare. Naval mines and adversary diesel submarines threaten the Navy's future access to parts of the western Pacific and Persian Gulf. According to RAND, UUVs provide a possible solution. As for naval aviation and the support it provides for ground forces, this study from CSBA shows the future for unmanned carrier-based strike aircraft.
On one level, a RAND report and two PowerPoint presentations are no more than just embryonic studies. In addition, unmanned vehicles have yet to confront defended spaces or hostile electronic countermeasures, concerns General Deptula readily acknowledged.
Yet no one should doubt the unmanned tsunami is on its way. Robert Gates badly thrashed the Air Force until it increased its UAV presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The upcoming QDR is certain to prominently promote UAS and UUV development. In addition, in his review of the Army's FCS program, Gates terminated the combat vehicles but retained much of the sensors and unmanned systems. So unmanned systems are getting close attention from the top of the Pentagon.
In his presentation at the Pentagon, General Deptula likened UAS development to where airpower was in the 1920s. Then, rickety platforms needed to mature and military planners needed to imagine new battlefield doctrines. Pressured by OSD if by nothing else, the Air Force and Navy will push ahead with their unmanned plans. Army and Marine Corps leaders need to involve themselves in those plans to avoid being left behind.
Comments
Granten have a point. I am not against technology but we can't say if the programming is perfect and that we are assured that no civilian will be accidentally harmed by these robots. New York Times reported recently that war will soon be terrible for bots. (See it here: <a title="Fully automated killer drones changing face of warfare" href="http://www.newsytype.com/11606-automated-killer-drones/">Fully automated killer drones changing face of warfare</a>) Completely computerized military drones are the future. Like Terminator robots from Skynet, these fully automated drones will learn and destroy without human remotes. As humans, do we have to be thankful for this creations?
The "unmanned tsunami" that Robert Haddick describes is long overdue. It will especially help the Air Force, which is suffering now from something of an identity crisis.
Indeed, as I explain on NewMajority.Com, "in significant respects, air power is irrelevant to modern-day conflicts. Military success today," I point out, "requires small-scale infantry units who can fight lethally and with precision in populated areas filled with civilian non-combatants."
http://www.newmajority.com/air-power-alone-cannot-win-wars
If, as Mr. Haddick reports, the Air Force truly wishes to dominate Unmanned Aerial System activity, "from nano-sized vehicles through large cargo-sized aircraft," then the Air Force may yet find its way back to operational wartime relevance.
This is important because America not only needs an air force that can sustain air dominance against any potential peer competitor. America also needs an air force that can actively supports it soldiers and Marines on the ground.
John R. Guardiano
I think General Deptula is overly optimistic when he judges drone development to be where airpower was in the 1920s. In the 20s military airplanes had already demonstrated their worth in a world war. They had engaged in very complex operations over the land and sea, in the day and the night. They had proved themselves against the best opposition available in tactical and even embryonic strategic engagements. The airplanes were rickety but the experience was very deep.
Drones haven't done any of those things yet. The only thing they have been used for is hanging a sensor of some kind in the sky over an opponent who couldn't do anything about it and firing the odd missile or bomb at the same opponent.
It would be more accurate to consider drones at the same level of development as guided missiles were in the early 50s or even the 40s. Missiles didn't really become reliably useful until 30 or 40 years later, say the early 80s. During that 30 or 40 year interval there was a lot of scrambling to work around plans that came to naught because the missiles didn't live up to the hype.
I fear we may find ourselves in the same situation given the wild enthusiasm for something that hasn't done much yet.
Sadly this doesn't mention the legal and social difficulties involved the area. If someone is accidentally shot by a robot suffering from poor programming in one of these systems who should be held culpable? It seems ludicrous to hold the programmer responsible for a shooting but it doesn't seem right to blame a soldier relying on that programming either. Where would trials be held? A criminal court, a military one, or a civil one?
On the social side, why do we still call these "unmanned"? We don't call cars "horseless" anymore.