Suppliers of military unmanned systems are constantly on look out for possible civilian applications. One promising civilian application is their use in disaster response. Unmanned Ground Vehicles crawl through the rubble of destroyed buildings looking for survivors. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles inspect buildings, bridges, wharfs, and other structures for damage and structural integrity. Unmanned systems used in response to disasters are referred to as “Search-And Rescue” (SAR) or “Urban Search and Rescue” (USAR).

Essentially, USAR robots act as the eyes and ears in environments that that are too difficult or too dangerous for humans to go. Preserving the safety of human rescuers is not a trivial concern. According to Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue (CRASAR), 135 rescuers died in rescue operations in response to a Mexico City earthquake.

Unmanned systems operating in irradiated areas of a nuclear accident is the classic example of a dangerous and hard-to-reach environment. Recently, the Japanese utility TEPCO sent a 2-foot long, snake-shaped robot into severely radioactive areas of the Fukushima reactor to collect temperature and radiation data. The video images created by this robot are the first we have seen of the damaged containment chamber. The information collected by this and other unmanned systems are expected to be critical in removing radioactive debris. For more information on the role of unmanned systems in the Fukushima disaster, see this blog’s post, Where are the Japanese robots?

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

The first known use of USAR robots was in response to the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center. Personnel from Foster-Miller, iRobot, University of South Florida, NAVSEA SPAWAR, DARPA, CRASAR operated or contributed upwards to 17 unmanned systems. This disaster highlighted the potential of USAR unmanned systems as well as the need for further development. Read more about the use of robots at the World Trade Center here.

Since then, USAR robots have been used over dozens of times, as indicated by the following table.

CRASAR Table

Source CRASAR

All USAR unmanned systems (ground, aerial, and marine) are remotely operated. Autonomous systems are not used due to real-time needs. Operators had expected that mobility and hardware capabilities would present the biggest challenges. Instead, Human-Robot Interactions and sensor limitations have been the leading problems.

This short video gives an excellent introduction to USAR robots as well as the CRASAR’s role in deploying them.

The voice you hear in the above video is Professor Dr. Robin Murphy, Director of CRASAR. She has been indefatigable in promoting USAR. Below is an interview with her discussing USAR unmanned systems and their role following 9/11.

Probably, the biggest single limitation to widespread deployment of USAR robots is money. Institutions are willing to invest in machines that replace expensive workers. They are more reluctant to expend resources on costly hardened systems that may be used rarely or never at all. In the above referenced blog post on the Fukushima disaster, I concluded that financial concerns were the major factors in the lack of an unmanned system response.

USAR robots save lives and hold the promise to limit the monetary consequences of disasters. Governments and other institutions should be heavily investing in them. It remains to be seen if the deadly combination of short-sighted economic concerns and wishful thinking can be overcome, so the full potential of USAR robots can be realized.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

The United States relies on its technological edge for military superiority. The problem with that strategy is that eventually everyone gets their hands on the latest technological advance.

The Shi’ite militias in Iraq do not have their hands on the latest, but they did get a hold of a UGV.  Obviously not fans of science fiction (otherwise they would know that armed robots always turn on their human masters), they went ahead and put a gun on this lumbering, exposed platform. War on the Rocks is less than impressed with this device, citing deficiencies in optics, wheels, and armor (the latter being nonexistent).

The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) doesn’t look particularly fearsome. It’s slow, clumsy, vulnerable, and looks like it’s dependent on line-of-sight for control. The Operator Control Unit (OCU) is a fragile looking commercial tablet, not the usual AMREL-made rugged OCU, which was a common sight in the Iraqi theater.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

The militia does have the good sense to use a UGV for its intended purpose, i.e. IED detection. You can check the whole thing out in the video below. I recommend fast forwarding to the 2 minute mark, and turning the sound off, unless you understand Arabic (Farsi?) and are a fan of cheesy jihadist music

Unmanned system designers are exploring bio-mimicry and hive intelligence. The video of “BionicANTs” below illustrates both trends.

Each individual mechanized ant uses control algorithms to cooperatively solve complex problems. Although they collectively perform a task, each individual ant engages in actions at a local level that are determined by autonomous decision making. Thus, they mimic real ants.

The ants have piezo-ceramic bending transducers in their legs’ actuators, which enables precise control and minimize the energy needed. Stereo cameras and floor sensors allow them to navigate their surroundings as well as identify objects that are to be manipulated. They communicate with a radio module that is located in their abdomen (the next time you are tempted to grouse about fitting a radio component into a small space, remember the challenges facing the designers of these ants).

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

To build the bodies, the manufacturers used 3D printed plastic powder, which was melted layer by layer with a laser. 3D printing was also used to create the electric circuits.

The ants are also cute, in their own way. I especially like how they use their antennas to charge their batteries.

Since I work for a company that sells to unmanned system developers, I am always on the lookout for information about market trends. Toward this end, I scanned a number of promotions for marketing reports, selected out bits of information, and summarized them in the table below.

Unmanned Systems Markets: Size and GrowthMarket table #1Sources include Markets and Markets (UGV & UGV, UUV, UAV), Report Buyer (UGV), Big Market Research (UAV), Reports n Reports (UUV), and Report Linker (UUV)

The two different CAGRs for UAV reflect opinions of two separate reports

 UUV

Many marketing reports are often extremely optimistic, so projections of enormous growth are not unusual.  Still, Holey Moley, look at the predictions for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs)!  Ten-fold growth in six years!

Like other unmanned systems, Defense applications will play a big role in UUVs expansion and development. However, utilization of UUVs for Oil & Gas inspection and construction are also significant.

I wonder if these incredible projections were made before the drop in oil prices.  Hard-to-reach oil beneath the sea may be too expensive to develop if petroleum prices remain depressed. That could affect the demand for UUVs.

UUVs can be divided into Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV). In fact, some reports consider them separate markets. See table below.

Market table #2

While the ROV market is currently the largest, AUV is expected to eventually dominate as autonomous capabilities improve. Other technological drivers include increased number of payloads, endurance, miniaturization, and AIP (Air Independent Propulsion).

UGV

While the UUV market growth is the most impressive, the Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) CAGR is nothing to sneeze at either. Certainly, we can expect demand for UGVs to be fueled by Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detection and Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR), i.e. their traditional duties.  However, according to some reports, we can expect UGVs to be also used for civilian applications, such as material handling, transportation, social welfare (especially elder care), agriculture, and telepresence (especially medicine).

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

UAV

The biggest surprise for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) market was the demand for combat applications.  One report predicted that Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) would constitute the single largest segment with a share of 34%.

A grain of salt as big as Gibraltar

Overall, the reports that I surveyed were upbeat, predicting exponential growth for all unmanned vehicles. North America (and Europe to a lesser degree) is expected to remain the dominant market. However, I saw multiple predictions that most growth will happen in “emerging” markets, such as BRIC countries, and other parts of the developing world.

Obviously, unplanned events could seriously affect predictions. If a UAV collided with a manned airplane and killed someone famous, the FCC’s pace in approving UAVs for domestic airspace could remain glacial.  On the other hand, if a small, developed country successfully integrated UAVs into their air control system, the pressure on the FCC to speed up the approval process could increase.

As always, view these marketing reports with a scrupulous, but wary eye.

 

Back in 2013, AUVSI raised some eyebrows with its bold predictions that when UAVs are integrated into the American airspace, the “… first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the United States with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. This benefit will grow through 2025 when we foresee more than 100,000 jobs created and economic impact of $82 billion.”

Some folks have taken issue with the report’s rosy predictions. As far as I can tell, their major objections are that one) all the guesswork in the report is a bunch of guesswork, and two) the report uses UAV integration in Japan to estimate economic impact in the US, which is a bad idea, because Japan is, you know, a different country.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

I think of economic projections as belonging in the same category as old fashion analog compasses. They will point you vaguely in the correct direction (if you’re lucky and there’s no nearby magnetic interference), but it’s best not to regard them as being too precise. I hope anyone reading them has the same appreciation of their inherent limitations, so I think the criticism, while accurate, may be a little misplaced.

You can decide for yourself. Follow the links below for both the report and its critics.

AUVSI’s The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States
Five Reasons the AUVSI Got Its Drone Market Forecast Wrong

For five years, researchers at Virginia Tech have been working on the human-like, bipedal Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR). Recently, the SAFFiR was successfully tested on the Chatwal, the Navy’s firefighting ship.

SAFFiR used LIDAR (rotating lasers) to navigate through dense smoke across uneven floors. It located hot spots with its stereoscopic thermal imaging cameras, and dowsed a small fire with a hose.

SAFFiR stands at five feet, ten inches and weighs 143-pounds. Its electrical motors are protected from water by raingear.

It may have autonomous in its name, but currently it is controlled by human operators through a console. Eventually, natural language and gestures will be additional control options.

Shipboard fires are a nasty business. Not only do flammable systems and ordinances pose a threat, but also human firefighters may not have the latest training. Indeed, their responses may actually make the situation worse.

SAFFiR is bipedal so it can work in the cramped shipboard environments designed for humans. Eventually humans and unmanned systems will integrate into hybrid firefighting teams.

SAFFiR is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ONR plans to expand SAFFiR’s duties to include checking for leaks, scanning for corrosion, and taking measurements.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) crash. A lot.

Consider the chart below, which is for “Class A” accidents, the most serious designation. As you can see, at all times, for all platforms, UAVs have a significantly higher crash rate than manned aircraft.

UAV Crash Table

Click to expand table

The Defense Department maintains that the UAVs are relatively new, and that as we learn how to fly them better, the rate of accidents goes down. This assertion appears to be true. However, the rate of UAVs falling from the sky is still frequent enough to give anyone pause when pondering their integration into domestic airspace.

Why are UAVs so prone to crashing? In a rare burst of actual journalism, the Washington Post has conducted an in-depth study of this issue (the article is worth reading in its entirety). They identify four major causes:

“•A limited ability to detect and avoid trouble. Cameras and high-tech sensors on a drone cannot fully replace a pilot’s eyes and ears and nose in the cockpit. Most remotely controlled planes are not equipped with radar or anti-collision systems designed to prevent midair disasters.

• Pilot error. Despite popular perceptions, flying a drone is much trickier than playing a video game. The Air Force licenses its drone pilots and trains them constantly, but mistakes are still common, particularly during landings. In four cases over a three-year period, Air Force pilots committed errors so egregious that they were investigated for suspected dereliction of duty.

• Persistent mechanical defects. Some common drone models were designed without backup safety features and rushed to war without the benefit of years of testing. Many accidents were triggered by basic electrical malfunctions; others were caused by bad weather. Military personnel blamed some mishaps on inexplicable problems. The crews of two doomed Predators that crashed in 2008 and 2009 told investigators that their respective planes had been ‘possessed’ and plagued by ‘demons.’

• Unreliable communications links. Drones are dependent on wireless transmissions to relay commands and navigational information, usually via satellite. Those connections can be fragile. Records show that links were disrupted or lost in more than a quarter of the worst crashes.”

The problem of limited sight and sound is nothing to sneeze at. There was an incident of a $3.8 million Predator crashing, because the pilot did not realize the UAV was flying upside-down.

For this and other reasons, pilots do not like flying the UAVs. One pilot is quoted by the Washington Post as saying:

“The problem is that nobody is comfortable with Predator. Nobody,” the pilot said, according to an interview transcript. He called the malfunction-prone drone “the most back-assedward aircraft I ever flown.”

In addition to poorer visual acuity, Predators are also slower than manned aircraft. UAV operators have complained that aviation personnel, such as air traffic controllers, often fail to account for the UAV’s limited speed and visual capabilities.

Predators are lighter than manned aircraft and lack redundant systems, such as engines. This makes mechanical problems a lot more serious for UAVs.

As it is with manned aircraft, “pilot error” for UAVs is a complex issue. One of the main attractions for UAVs is that they can stay in the air longer than their manned counterparts. Ideally, the lengthy mission is shared between 2 or more pilots. However, a shortage of trained pilots has meant that UAV operators are putting in extended shifts. Of course, this increases the odds of pilot error.

Furthermore, UAVs are flown by teams, i.e. sensor operators as well as pilots. These teams may be responsible for more than one UAV at a time. The more people involved in a task, the more points of failure are possible.

Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue rules for domestic integration of UAVs by September 2015. UAV promoters have accused the FAA of dragging its feet, but considering the poor adjustments that the Air Force and other institutions have made in switching from manned to unmanned vehicles, and the alarming crash rate, bureaucratic reluctance seems reasonable.

Some have argued that the integration of UAVs into domestic airspace should be easier than that of unmanned systems on the ground or in the water. Fewer obstacles, fewer people, and fewer competing manned vehicles. Developers of non-aerial unmanned vehicles should pay special attention to the legal and political challenges faced by UAVs for these may foreshadow the problems of integrating autonomous cars, remotely controlled ships, and even domestic robots.

Boston Dynamics quadrupedal Big Dog Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) looks pretty amazing in its videos. However, the smaller version, known as “Spot,” is even more mind-boggling.

The electrically powered Spot is faster and quieter than the gas-fueled Big Dog. Weighing only 160 pounds (Big Dog is 240), Spot displays an impressive agility while navigating stairs, crossing rough terrain and especially righting itself after being kicked (one commentator suggests that since the robot rebellion is inevitable, it is unwise for Boston Dynamics to abuse them).

One of the main arguments against UGVs with legs is their lack of robustness and engineering simplicity as compared to their wheeled counterparts (for more on this debate, see Walk n’ Roll). The progress Boston Dynamics has made with Spot and Big Dog undermines this contention. Go, Spot, go.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

For unmanned systems, the air is a relatively simpler environment than the ground. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), unlike their earth-bound counterparts, do not have to navigate culverts, bridges, people, cars, and other obstacles. The FAA’s anxieties have mostly focused on concerns about privacy and airplane collisions. There is one other problem that we should be worried about: animals. In the battle of rams, hawks, and kangaroos vs. UAVs, the UAVs do not always win.

Hawk vs. Quadcopter


Read about it here.

Bird vs. RC plane

Amazing photography!  Bird is a raptor of some kind.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Ram vs. Quadcopter

Be sure to watch the last part of the video as the ram attacks the operator when he tries to recover his downed quadcopter.

Kangaroo vs. UAV

Somewhere there is a bureaucrat tasked with regulating UAVs, shaking his head, saying, “You mean we have to also worry about freaking kangaroos!”  Read about kangaroo attack here.

Everyone knows that unmanned systems will change everything for land forces.  However, no one is sure what those changes will be.

“It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly how the Landpower robot revolution will unfold.”

The above quote was written by Dr. Steven Metz, the Director of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) as well as research director for the Joint Strategic Landpower Task Force.  While the future is unknown, Dr. Metz argues that it is possible to identify the questions that need to be answered, at least some of them.  Writing on SSI’s websites, his questions include:

  • What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?
  • How autonomous should the robots be?
  • What type of people will be needed for robot heavy Landpower formations?
  • What effect will robot centric Landpower have on American national security policy?
  • What to do about enemy robots?

Dr. Metz’s article is worth reading in its entirety (view it here). Below are a few highlights as well as some reactions.

Logistics and expense

Dr. Metz quotes Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security:

“Uninhabited systems can help bring mass back to the fight by augmenting human-inhabited combat systems with large numbers of lower cost uninhabited systems to expand the number of sensors and shooters in the fight. Because they can take more risk without a human onboard, uninhabited systems can balance survivability against cost, affording the ability to procure larger numbers of systems.”

Unmanned systems have always been seen as economical force multipliers. However, Metz’s and Scharre’s comments imply other benefits as well.

A central weakness of an army is its need for support. Even Israel’s relatively small military, which usually has short logistics lines, is vulnerable. In the run-up to the 1973 war, Egypt quickly mobilized and demobilized its forces over and over. Israel responded with its own mobilization and demobilization of its civilian-based military forces, but this played havoc with its economy.  After a while, they decided that Egypt was just playing games with them; that’s when Egypt attacked.

If the military forces had been unmanned systems, Egypt’s strategy may not have been as effective.  The costs of maintaining a large unmanned force in readiness may be less than mobilizing a large manned one.

Current events validate this way of thinking. The current administration is reducing manpower overseas, while relying more and more on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Although most people focus on the reduced risk to American lives, it is also clear that it is cheaper to send UAVs to Waziristan than maintain forward placed personnel.

A counterpoint is that robots may not be as cheap as people think they are. Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London wrote:

“The other element of the UAV side in the ISR arena is that people look at a UAV and think, unmanned, surely it won’t cost as much. The UAV actually just shifts to some extent, where the cost comes, in terms of the number of support people, pilots required actually to fly the air vehicle from a ground station, and then the imagery exploitation and analysis teams who run to serious numbers of personnel, obviously deriving great value, in military terms, from these things. But the, kind of, initial notion that these things were going to be cheap doesn’t actually turn out to be necessarily correct.”  (Non-traditional Airborne ISR Makes the Leap from Unconventional to Conventional Warfare – Defense IQ)

We have already seen the reluctance of the military to commit expensive systems to actual combat (some sophisticated fighter jets are rarely used). Are robots ever going to be so cheap that they are essentially expendable?

Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development, DoD Programs sees problems.

“I have firsthand reports from soldiers and officers who have put high tech but good equipment back in the box, and chosen not to use it in operations. The one time they did use a piece of equipment, it was damaged beyond repair by errant enemy mortar fire. Subsequent investigation and paper work was so intrusive and demanding as to create a pain level that ensured the equipment would never be used again. Somewhere the worldview disconnect between operators and widget counters needs to be overcome.”

You do not need a body to be an antibody

Dr. Metz makes an interesting assertion that robots don’t become an ‘“antibody’ in a foreign culture.” This is another way of saying that no one screams “Hide the women! The robots are coming!” Robots do not loot, rape or violate local customs by refusing to take off their shoes in holy places. The author goes as far to call unmanned systems “politically palatable,” and could be useful in certain stages of counter-insurgency efforts.

This may be one of those ideas that make sense, but just isn’t true. Whether you are talking about Yemen, Gaza, or Afghanistan, locals hate and dread unmanned systems. There is a fairly vociferous “anti-drone” movement happening on a global scale. Right now, people are scared of “death from the skies,” but I suspect these negative attitudes could be projected onto Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) as well. Would you like an autonomous lethal killing machine running around in your neighborhood?

Robert Culver thinks that unmanned systems may actually be more culturally problematic than human soldiers. He writes:

“I do believe that there can be and is cultural rejection of ground robots.   As a hetman of my tribe I would be offended if you sent a machine instead of a man.”

What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?

Dr. Metz discusses this question at length and considers it one of the great imponderables. Unlike the author, I do not consider the mix of humans and robots to be all that mysterious.

Is it really that difficult to decide who and when gets an ISR-oriented tactical UAV or an IED-sniffing UGV? These are more tactical questions than strategic, and the answers should present themselves as time goes on.

Unmanned systems = more war

Dr. Metz speculates that the increased use of unmanned systems will make leaders less hesitant about committing to combat. I have always been skeptical of the “Robots makes it easier to go to war” argument. As noted above, the military has shown reluctance to use some of its best technology due to its expense as well as the risk of enemies capturing and reverse-engineering advance devices. This may be regarded as an updated version of “McClellan-ism,” i.e., “I sure would hate for something bad to happen to my pretty, well-trained soldiers.”

However, I have to admit the evidence seems to support this fear. The President gets a lot of flak for being “weak,” but if you include UAV-strikes, he may have more kinetic actions going on in more countries than any other administration since WW II. He is killing a lot of people in a lot of places for someone who is supposed to be a wimp.

Where’s the revolution?

Rather than make predictions based on an agenda, Dr. Metz’s article stresses how little we know about the future effects of unmanned systems. For example, no one knows where the most influential innovations will come from.

 “Even though it is clear that a revolution will happen, it is hard to tell where it will take place. Will it be the Army’s existing network for innovation, including the schools in the professional military educational system, the battle labs, and the various ‘centers of excellence’? Will it be in the offices of mavericks outside the formal system of innovation? Will it be in cutting edge corporations? Or will it be led by America’s enemies, with the U.S. military reacting as it falls behind?”

Dr. Metz’s above quote is consistent with the overall perception that here is a lack of leadership and vision within the Defense community concerning unmanned systems. For our unmanned system developers and vendors, this may be the most important question of all.  It’s hard to build for a future that hasn’t been defined yet.

Timing is everything

Rob Culver sees the lack of vision for unmanned technology as a function of its development and the needs of the military.

“An idea can be good or bad or even great, depending upon timing. A good idea that’s too early can be viewed as down-right stupid. But a good idea when the technology is mature enough and the need is urgent is brilliant.

“I think unmanned systems and particularly unmanned ground systems are still, believe it or not, premature. Autonomy, the associated technology and other capabilities are not mature enough. Furthermore, the need (other than for counter-IED and route clearance) is not painful enough to truly generate ‘urgent’ needs statements.

“I do believe the future of warfare will include manned/unmanned teaming as we are already beginning to see with aerial platforms. But we control the environment in air space. The same reason that FAA is not quick to clear unmanned/remotely piloted aircraft in national airspace also applies to ground operations during conflict.

“Land forces operate in a different environment than air. There are no ditches, culverts, tunnels and multi-story buildings in the flying drones’ airspace as there will be on the ground. Too many people running around and no easy way to differentiate combatant from non-combatant.

“We have had endless conversations, but no ready answer. A lot of people experimented with heavier than air flight for literally decades, if not centuries before Wilbur and Orville invented ‘flight.’”

Unknown ≠ inaction

According to Culver’s analysis, as technology advances and needs become pressing, the requirements for unmanned systems will become clear.

However, I do not think this need to be a call for passivity. Indeed, the Army may not know it wants a specific solution until it is presented to them.

Vendors can and should take steps to create the future of unmanned systems, including:

  • Developing capabilities that will likely be needed, such as “sliding autonomy” and navigation.
  • Partnering to create “best-of-breed” solutions. This may even require cooperating with our competitors on occasion.
  • Interoperability, interoperability, interoperability. Not just on common control, but on more mundane elements, such as batteries and spare parts.
  • Economy will always matter. In a crisis, the military will throw money at a problem, but the vendor with the cheapest solution that matches urgent needs will have an enormous advantage.

Finally, as an industry we need to step up. We can sit around complaining about the government’s lack of vision for the future, but it is to our advantage that we collectively create that future.

To learn more about the likely future of Unmanned Ground Vehicles,

Contact Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com