Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations

257 Pages·2005·4.87 MB·English

by  National Research Council, Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
IN SUPPORT OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS
Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations
Naval Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti-
tute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen
for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #14, between the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided
support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09676-6
Copies of this report are available from:
Naval Studies Board
The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500
Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; [phone] or (202) 334-
3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of dis-
tinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the further-
ance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of
the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it
to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is
president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The
National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting
national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to
secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of
policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibil-
ity given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to
the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, re-
search, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Acad-
emies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair
and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE ON AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS
JOHN J. DEYST, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair
NEIL J. ADAMS, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc.
W.R. BOLTON, Sandia National Laboratories
ROY R. BUEHLER, Mableton, Georgia
ARMAND J. CHAPUT, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
JOHN C. FIELDING, Durham, California
JAMES R. FITZGERALD, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
CHARLES A. FOWLER, Sudbury, Massachusetts
ROBERT H. GORMLEY, The Oceanus Company
MICHAEL R. HILLIARD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts
HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
CARL E. LANDWEHR, National Science Foundation
JAMES R. LUYTEN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
CARL MIKEMAN, Northrop Grumman Corporation
JOHN B. MOONEY, JR., Austin, Texas
STEWART D. PERSONICK, Bernardsville, New Jersey
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems
HOWARD E. SHROBE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES M. SINNETT, Ballwin, Missouri
MARILYN J. SMITH, Georgia Institute of Technology
CHARLES E. THORPE, Carnegie Mellon University
DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company
BRIAN H. WILCOX, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave from July 12, 2003)
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003)
ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer (as of October 22, 2003)
MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (through August 27, 2004)
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate
SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant
iv
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD
JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair
ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute
ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation
BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies
KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services
JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University
HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia
THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc.
L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California
WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland
JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International
JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems
WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia
RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences
DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company
CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ELIHU ZIMET, National Defense University
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, N81 (through October 1, 2004)
MR. GREG MELCHER, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Acting N81
(from October 2, 2004, through November 8, 2004)
RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, N81 (as of November 8, 2004)
RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine
Corps Combat Development Command (through September 30, 2004)
LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps
Combat Development Command (as of October 1, 2004)
v
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003)
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003)
ARUL MOZHI, Study Director (as of May 15, 2004)
MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (through August 27, 2004)
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate
vi
Preface
Recent naval operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been carried
out successfully in a joint environment in which much useful information was
generated by unmanned aerial vehicles. These experiences have sharpened in-
sight into the nature of complex threats and how to deal with them in order to
assure access for maneuver and the delivery of effective firepower. Furthermore,
foreign ports and the homeland must be defended against threats—some “asym-
metric” and some sophisticated—which may arrive by sea or air. These threats
are often characterized by their mobility and may be attempted over extended
periods of time. Surveillance must thus take place over wide areas and operate
over long time periods, which can be risky and at least wearing for the personnel
involved. The possible costs and risks incurred are strong arguments for expanded
use of unmanned vehicles in future operations.
The successful use of unmanned vehicles in recent operations has led to rec-
ognition of their broader utility and to additional calls for more unmanned ve-
hicles by President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense, Donald H.
Rumsfeld. Attracted by the prospect of lower unit cost and risk for unmanned
vehicles than for manned vehicles, all of the Services have been active in this area
with initiatives and plans for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), uninhabited com-
bat air vehicles (UCAVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), unmanned sur-
face vehicles (USVs), and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs); in some cases
there have been operational deployments. From these efforts it has become widely
appreciated that unmanned vehicle systems can offer many opportunities, includ-
ing surveillance and reconnaissance, targeting of firepower with onboard weap-
ons, damage assessment, and service as communications nodes and for signals
vii
viii PREFACE
intelligence, environmental measurements, and the detection and identification of
nuclear, biological, and chemical threats.
Recent experiments and evaluations have indicated that before the effective
deployment of unmanned vehicles, many technical and operational questions re-
main to be addressed, such as the level of autonomy needed, as well as issues
relating to reliability, environmental sensitivity, vehicle integration, and opera-
tional training. The technical challenges include size, endurance, speed, recover-
ability, survivability, altitude or depth range, along with onboard and offboard
trade-offs related to communications, intelligence, situation awareness (for
deconfliction), replanning capability (needed for threat changes), multiple ve-
hicle control, and human interfaces. The topic of autonomous vehicles clearly has
many aspects and corresponding technological challenges that must be addressed
in order to enhance their overall utility to naval (and joint) operations.
In August 2002, the Chief of Naval Operations requested that the National
Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, establish a
committee to review the status of, experience with, technology challenges related
to, and plans for development and concepts for autonomous vehicles (AVs) in
support of naval operations. The terms of reference for the study are provided
below. John J. Deyst of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology chaired the
committee. Biographical information on the membership and staff is presented in
Appendix A.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Naval Studies Board of
the National Research Council conducted a study across all naval operational
environments—sea, air, land, and space—to address the following (the chapters
of the report that address each issue are shown in brackets):
• Review the status, experience, and lessons learned to date with autono-
mous vehicles in the military and other functional areas (space, industry, energy)
[Chapters 1 and 3];
• Identify capabilities needed to improve the utility of autonomous vehicles
in military operations and homeland defense, taking into account projected threats
[Chapter 2];
• Examine and project technologies needed to achieve these capabilities,
and the levels of autonomy involved [Chapters 3 through 6];
• Investigate the functional utility between vehicle autonomy and overall
system complexity, survivability, and safety, accounting for networking, systems
integration, logistics, and training [Chapter 3];
• Evaluate the potential of synergies involving combinations of autonomous
vehicles and other naval platforms in military operations and homeland defense
[Chapter 7]; and
PREFACE ix
• Identify opportunities and means for transitioning autonomous vehicles in
support of naval operations, including systems integration issues related to battle
group and amphibious readiness group compatibility [Chapters 4 through 6].
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations
first convened in December 2002 and held further meetings and site visits over a
period of six months, as summarized in the following list.
• December 9-10, 2002, in Washington, D.C. (Plenary Session). Organiza-
tional meeting. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV), N81 and
N513G, overview of Sea Power 21 and the vision of the future Navy; OPNAV,
N780X, overview of Navy unmanned aerial vehicle requirements and initiatives;
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) briefing on DARPA sci-
ence and technology initiatives on unmanned vehicles; U.S. Navy Program Ex-
ecutive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare briefing on Navy unmanned undersea,
sea surface, and ground vehicle technology development and transition; U.S.
Navy Program Executive Office, Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation brief-
ing on Navy unmanned aerial vehicle technology development and transition;
Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory briefing on Expeditionary Maneuver War-
fare, vision of the future Marine Corps, and Marine Corps perspective on require-
ments and initiatives for unmanned vehicles; Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) Joint Robotics Program briefing on initiatives on unmanned ground ve-
hicles; Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) briefing on NRAC study
on the role of unmanned vehicles; Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval
Air Systems Command briefings on the autonomous operations Future Naval
Capability program; and OSD overview of OSD Roadmap on Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles.
• January 25-26, 2003, in Washington, D.C. Naval Surface Warfare Cen-
ter, Dahlgren Division study outbrief on shaping the future of naval warfare with
unmanned systems; OPNAV, N61, overview of FORCEnet and the role un-
manned vehicles play; OPNAV, N2, overview of Navy intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and the role unmanned vehicles play; Na-
tional Imagery and Mapping Agency overview of Digital Point Positional Data-
base; OPNAV, N70, briefing on Navy requirements for unmanned vehicles;
Northrop Grumman Corporation briefing on Global Hawk performance in Op-
eration Enduring Freedom; Headquarters Marine Corps overview of Marine Corps
ISR capabilities and the role unmanned vehicles play; Marine Corps Combat
Development Command briefing on Marine Corps requirements for unmanned
vehicles; and U.S. Navy Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare
briefing overview of Navy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Master Plan.