The unmanned systems tsunami
After several years of confusion and cultural resistance, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy are now laying out plans to rapidly expand and integrate unmanned systems into their doctrines, force structures, and procurement plans. These plans, especially the Air Force’s, will have significant implications for U.S. ground forces. U.S. Army and Marine Corps leaders would do well to pay attention to the Air Force and Navy’s plans for unmanned systems and to participate in the formulation of these plans to the extent they can. Getting involved will help ensure that the Air Force and Navy plans integrate effectively with ground force requirements.
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.
