Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030 - Federation of ...

UAS ROADMAP 2005
� Battle damage assessment (BDA) so operational commanders can properly determine whether strike
“go/no-go/continue” criteria have been met.
• If BDA is organic this reduces the reliance on other systems outside the SEAD UA platform, but
puts other design requirements on the SEAD UA that complicate signature control.
• If BDA is not organic then this simplifies the SEAD UA design requirements, but complicates the
integration of other ISR capabilities as a family of systems attempting to achieve effect in the
SEAD mission.
� Weapons optimized for concept of employment. If using direct attack munitions (short range), then a
robust signature reduction design, or stand-off weapons with appropriate support from on-board or
off-board sensors to find, fix, track and target intended threats must be employed.
� The use of direct attack munitions is a major cost avoidance compared to the integration and use of
stand-off weapons.
� However, stand-off weapons provide an opportunity to relax signature design requirements and thus
avoid significant low-observable costs.
Execution of the reactive SEAD mission implies further design criteria:
� Enemy defensive systems’ operations must be detected rapidly implying an onboard capability to
detect threats, or a well integrated system of systems.
� Reaction time from detection to neutralization of the enemy defenses must be very short (seconds).
� When using weapons to neutralize defenses, the flight time of the weapon must be reduced by the
ability to stand in close to the target (high survivability) or by the use of a high-speed weapon.
� Robust, anti-jam, data links are required.
� Reactive SEAD will require low latency human interaction with the system – or high autonomy
within the system for determination of ROE criteria.
� Reactive SEAD implies the integration of manned and unmanned aircraft in a single strike event.
Strike/SEAD summary. The era of UA contribution to strike missions has arrived and SEAD missions
are just dawning with the J-UCAS program. Availability will add new options in the application of force,
and promises to reduce the cost of our armed forces. It should be noted, that for the foreseeable future
UA are not a complete replacement for manned aircraft. UA can bring enhancements to mission
capability (e.g. risk-free close approach to heavily defended targets) but will continue to only satisfy a
portion of the many missions strike assets cover. Close air support is an example of one such area where
the use of a UA to deliver ordnance in very close proximity to friendly forces will face technical,
employment, and cultural barriers that imply that manned aircraft programs must continue to provide the
solution, at least for the near- and mid-term. There will be an impact on the total numbers of manned
systems that must be acquired.
Electronic Attack
EA is the use of electromagnetic energy to prevent or reduce an enemy’s effective use of the
electromagnetic spectrum and employment of weapons that use either electromagnetic or directed energy
as their primary destructive mechanism. Many of the attributes that make UA attractive for SEAD also
make them attractive for the EA mission because UA can theoretically achieve levels of survivability that
manned aircraft cannot. Signature control without the need for human caretaking becomes less difficult.
Additionally, maneuverability could be increased beyond human tolerances to enhance survivability.
Finally, as stated before, should survivability measures fail, the use of an unmanned system removes the
risk of losing a human life – arguably one of the strongest reasons for using a UA in a combat situation.
Many challenges remain for developers and tacticians, but the EA mission is being considered for both
the Air Force’s and Navy’s J-UCAS. EA concepts of employment may include jamming or employment
APPENDIX A – MISSIONS
Page A-6