Integrating genocide weapons into global airspace system for continuity of govt.

[Anti_Illuminati]

This post comes with a preface--first from a previous post that more than deserves revisiting, as well as some key articles from a site that hosts the links where the document can be downloaded.  This particular PDF was excessively troublesome to extract error free.  There are many words missing a letter, as well as extra spaces throughout the entire document that I do not have time to correct, it is still entirely legible, and the original sourced PDF is available anyways.  I may go through and do subsequent highlighting as time permits, although it would do you well to let your own brain highlight for yourself what stands out to you.  Understandably a lot of this document is "military speak" verbiage that is irrelevant to most people.  However, there are very key things revealed in here that are incredibly revealing and damning, if I did not realize this, I would not have made such a big deal about it.  Anyone who actually takes the time to thoroughly read this will be shocked to say the least.  It is one of those things that "get's better (in this case WORSE) as you go."

Pentagon Envisioning a Costly Internet for War
By TIM WEINER

Published: November 13, 2004

The Pentagon is building its own Internet, the military's world wide web for the wars of the future. The goal is to give all American commanders and troops a moving picture of all foreign enemies and threats - "a God's-eye view" of battle.

This "Internet in the sky," Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force, told Congress, would allow "marines in a Humvee, in a faraway land, in the middle of a rainstorm, to open up their laptops, request imagery" from a spy satellite, and "get it downloaded within seconds."

The Pentagon calls the secure network the Global Information Grid, or GIG. Conceived six years ago, its first connections were laid six weeks ago. It may take two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to build the new war net and its components.

Skeptics say the costs are staggering and the technological hurdles huge.

Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and a Pentagon consultant on the war net, said he wondered if the military's dream was realistic. "I want to make sure what we realize is vision and not hallucination," Mr. Cerf said.

"This is sort of like Star Wars, where the policy was, 'Let's go out and build this system,' and technology lagged far behind,'' he said. "There's nothing wrong with having ambitious goals. You just need to temper them with physics and reality."

Advocates say networked computers will be the most powerful weapon in the American arsenal. Fusing weapons, secret intelligence and soldiers in a globe-girdling network - what they call net-centric warfare - will, they say, change the military in the way the Internet has changed business and culture.

"Possibly the single most transforming thing in our force,'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, "will not be a weapons system, but a set of interconnections."

The American military, built to fight nations and armies, now faces stateless enemies without jets, tanks, ships or central headquarters. Sending secret intelligence and stratagems instantly to soldiers in battle would, in theory, make the military a faster, fiercer force against a faceless foe.

Robert J. Stevens, chief executive of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the nation's biggest military contractor, said he envisioned a "highly secure Internet in which military and intelligence activities are fused," shaping 21st-century warfare in the way that nuclear weapons shaped the cold war.

Every member of the military would have "a picture of the battle space, a God's-eye view," he said. "And that's real power." [INSERT:  And you murdered 3,000 on 9/11, 1.3 mil iraqis, and 13+K American troops for your sinful lust for this power, which you cannot take to your grave, and will be held accountable for.]

Pentagon traditionalists, however, ask if net-centric warfare is nothing more than an expensive fad. They point to the street fighting in Falluja and Baghdad, saying firepower and armor still mean more than fiber optic cables and wireless connections.

But the biggest challenge in building a war net may be the military bureaucracy. For decades, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have built their own weapons and traditions. A network, advocates say, would cut through those old ways. The ideals of this new warfare are driving many of the Pentagon's spending plans for the next 10 to 15 years. Some costs are secret, but billions have already been spent.

Providing the connections to run the war net will cost at least $24 billion over the next five years - more than the cost, in today's dollars, of the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Beyond that, encrypting data will be a $5 billion project.

Hundreds of thousands of new radios are likely to cost $25 billion. Satellite systems for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications will be tens of billions more. The Army's program for a war net alone has a $120 billion price tag.

Over all, Pentagon documents suggest, $200 billion or more may go for the war net's hardware and software in the next decade or so. "The question is one of cost and technology," said John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"We want to know all things at all times everywhere in the world? Fine," Mr. Hamre said. "Do we know what this staring, all-seeing eye is that we're going to put in space is? Hell, no."

The military wants to know "everything of interest to us, all the time," in the words of Steven A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence. He has told Congress that military intelligence - including secret satellite surveillance covering most of the earth - will be posted on the war net and shared with troops.

John Garing, strategic planning director at the Defense Information Security Agency, now starting to build the war net, said: "The essence of net-centric warfare is our ability to deploy a war-fighting force anywhere, anytime. Information technology is the key to that."

Military contractors - and information-technology creators not usually associated with weapons systems - formed a consortium to develop the war net on Sept. 28. The group includes an A-list of military contractors and technology powerhouses: Boeing; Cisco Systems; Factiva, a joint venture of Dow Jones and Reuters; General Dynamics; Hewlett-Packard; Honeywell; I.B.M.; Lockheed Martin; Microsoft; Northrop Grumman; Oracle; Raytheon; and Sun Microsystems. They are working to weave weapons, intelligence and communications into a seamless web.

The Pentagon has tried this twice before.

Its Worldwide Military Command and Control System, built in the 1960's, often failed in crises. A $25 billion successor, Milstar, was completed in 2003 after two decades of work. Pentagon officials say it is already outdated: more switchboard than server, more dial-up than broadband, it cannot support 21st-century technology.

The Pentagon's scientists and engineers, starting four decades ago, invented the systems that became the Internet. Throughout the cold war, their computer power ran far ahead of the rest of the world.

Then the world eclipsed them. The nation's military and intelligence services started falling behind when the Internet exploded onto the commercial scene a decade ago. The war net is "an attempt to catch up," Mr. Cerf said.

It has been slowly evolving for at least six years. In 1999, Pentagon officials told Congress that "this monumental task will span a quarter-century or more." This year, the vision gained focus, and Pentagon officials started explaining it in some detail to Congress.

Its scope was described in July by the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog agency for Congress.

Many new multibillion-dollar weapons and satellites are "critically dependent on the future network," the agency reported. "Despite enormous challenges and risks - many of which have not been successfully overcome in smaller-scale efforts" like missile defense, "the Pentagon is depending on the GIG to enable a fundamental transformation in the way military operations are conducted."

According to Art Cebrowski, director of the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation, "What we are really talking about is a new theory of war." Linton Wells II, the chief information officer at the Defense Department, said net-centric principles were becoming "the center of gravity" for war planners.

"The tenets are broadly accepted throughout the Defense Department," said Mr. Wells, who directs the Office of Networks and Information Integration. "Senior leadership can articulate them. We still have a way to go in terms of why we should spend X billion dollars on a certain program. In the fight between widgets and digits, widgets tend to win."

He said $24 billion would be spent in the next five years to build new war net connections. "No doubt these are expensive," Mr. Wells said. "Technology developments always are."

Advocates acknowledge that weaving American military and intelligence services into a unified system is a huge challenge.

The military is filled with "tribal representatives behind tribal workstations interpreting tribal hieroglyphics," in the words of Gen. John Jumper, the Air Force chief of staff. "What if the machines talked to each other?" he asked.

That is the vision of the new web: war machines with a common language for all military forces, instantly emitting encyclopedias of lethal information against all enemies.  WOW, you HATE free humanity THAT MUCH DON'T YOU?

To realize this vision, the military must solve a persistent problem. It all boils down to bandwidth.

Bandwidth measures how much data can flow between electronic devices. Too little for civilians means a Web page takes forever to load. Too little for soldiers means the war net will not work.

The bandwidth requirements seem bottomless. The military will need 40 or 50 times what it used at the height of the Iraq war last year, a Rand Corporation study estimates - enough to give front-line soldiers bandwidth equal to downloading three feature-length movies a second.

The Congressional Research Service said the Army, despite plans to spend $20 billion on the problem, may wind up with a tenth of the bandwidth it needs. The Army, in its "lessons learned" report from Iraq, published in May, said "there will probably never be enough resources to establish a complete and functioning network of communications, sensors, and systems everywhere in the world."

The bottleneck is already great. In Iraq, front-line commanders and troops fight frequent software freezes. "To make net-centric warfare a reality," said Tony Montemarano, the Defense Information Security Agency's bandwidth expansion chief, "we will have to precipitously enhance bandwidth."

The military must also change its own culture.

For decades, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have built separate weapons, radios, frequencies and traditions. They guard their "rice bowls" - their turf - from rival services.

But Mr. Rumsfeld's vision depends on interoperability: warfare using all four services in joint operations. [INSERT:  it isn't "his vision", it's the NWO's.]

In a net-centric world, "you would not have a Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines," but a unified force, said William Owens, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  [INSERT:  Also in a net-centric world, you wouldn't have a Congress, a Senate, nor a President, NOR SOLDIERS-TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NOT GOING ALONG WITH ANYTHING THE ELITE CRIMINALS WANT TO CARRY OUT!]

For the Pentagon's visionaries, Mr. Montemarano said, "the single biggest obstacle is a cultural one.''

"Breaking these rice bowls - that's a huge job."

Excerpt from:  Alexander H. Levis/AFRL Engineering False Flag Terror (Effects Based Operations)



http://www.uasresearch.org/home/default.asp?L1=11&a=55

From left to right:  Senator Byron Dorgan, Senator Kent Conrad, Governor John Hoeven, Congressman Earl Pomeroy, AETC/CC Gen. Stephen Lorenz

What is it about?

The United States Air Force, in partnership with the University of North Dakota, is pleased to announce an Academic Symposium to be held on August 4-6, 2009 in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The objective of this three-day, invitation-only workshop is to bring together key members of the USAF and invited leaders of the national academic community in order to identify new basic research directions and funding opportunities for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in areas such as airspace integration, UAS integrated lifecycle management, UAS training, airborne networks, small UAS development, artificial intelligence, computer vision, and to introduce the Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan for 2009-2047.

Who should attend?

    * Colleges and universities who need to identify the requirements for safe operations of UAS in the National Airspace System and to translate those needs into basic research objectives for academic research, and who desire to clarify and identify new methods and paths to facilitate support of the Air Force’s unmanned aircraft mission.

    * Any college or university conducting research on or interested in the following UAS related areas: Autonomy, Interoperability, Multi Aircraft Control, Modularity, Policy, SUAS, Training.

    * Attendees will be encouraged to present their timely and relevant research efforts and to engage in focused panel discussions while engaging with Air Force decision makers and research sponsors.

Topics Include:

    * National Airspace System Integration
    * UAS Integrated Lifecycle Management
    * UAS Training
    * Airborne Networks
    * Small UAS Development
    * Artificial Intelligence
    * USAF UAS Flight Plan 2009-2047

-  Download United States Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047

-  Download USAF UAS Symposium PDF

-  Download Preliminary Agenda

-  Download Session and Panel Topic Briefings

UNCLASSIFIED


List of Figures ... 7
References ... 9
1. INTRODUCTION ... 14
1.1 Purpose ... 14
1.2 Assumptions ... 14
1.3 Vision ... 15
2. BACKGROUND ... 15
2.1 Basic Environment ... 15
2.2 UAS Characteristics ... 15
3. PROCESS ... 16
3.2 Implementation Plan ... 17
3.3 Roles and Responsibilities... 17
3.4 DOTMLPF-P Immediate Actions ... 17
3.5 DOTMLPF-P Future Portfolio Actions .............................................................................................. 18
4. EFFECTIVE DATE ... 18
5. OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY (OPR): ................................................................................ 19
6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ... 19
ANNEX 1- DOTMLPF-P ASSESSMENT OF UAS THREATS- .................................................................. 21
1.1 Threats ... 21
1.2 Vulnerabilities ... 21
ANNEX 2- GAPS AND SHORTFALLS ... 23
2.1 Application of Gaps and Shortfalls ................................................................................................... 23
ANNEX 3- CURRENT PROGRAMS ... 25
3.1 Small UAS... 25
3.2 Medium UAS ... 26
3.3 Large UAS ... 27
3.4 GWOT- Supplemental to Baseline Funding ..................................................................................... 28
3.5 Manpower ... 28
3.6 Human Systems Integration (HSI) ... 30
ANNEX 4- EVOLUTION OF CAPABILITIES .............................................................................................. 33
4.1 Family of Systems : ... 33
4.2 Small UAS Family of Systems ... 35
4.3 Medium System ... 38
4.4 Large-size Unmanned Aircraft System ............................................................................................. 39
4.5 Special Category System ... 40
4.6 Path to Autonomy- DOTMLPF-P Synchronization ........................................................................... 41
4.6.1  Near Term ... 42
4.6.1.1 Near Term Simultaneous Actions ...................................................................................... 42
4.6.1.2 Additional Near Term Actions: Communications Network Issues ..................................... 43
4.6.1.2.1 Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) ......................................................................... 44
4.6.1.2.2 Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) ................................................................................ 44
4.6.1.2.3 Spectrum Management ................................................................................................... 45
4.6.1.2.4 Protected Communications ............................................................................................. 45
4.6.1.2.5 Bandwidth Management ................................................................................................. 45
4.6.2 Mid-Term ... 46
4.6.3 Long Term (FY15-25) ... 48
4.6.3.1 NAS Integration ... 48
4.6.3.2 Long Term (FY15-25) Technology Enablers ..................................................................... 49
4.6.3.3 Career Pyramid Development ............................................................................................ 49
4.6.4 Long Term (FY25-47) Path Toward Ful  Autonomy .................................................................. 50
4.6.4.1 Long Term (FY25-47) Technology Enablers ..................................................................... 50
4.6.4.2 Force Structure Reform ... 50
ANNEX 5- IMMEDIATE ACTION PLAN ... 53
5.1 DOTMLPF-P Immediate Actions ... 53


- 5 -
 
UNCLASSIFIED


5.1.1 Doctrine: ... 53
5.1.2 Organization ... 54
5.1.3 Training ... 55
5.1.4 Materiel and Personnel: ... 55
5.1.5 Leadership, Education and Personnel ...................................................................................... 59
5.1.6  Policy: ... 59
5.2   Independent Logistics Assessments (ILA) ..................................................................................... 60
ANNEX 6- ENTERING THE CORPORATE PROCESS ............................................................................. 63
6.0 Key DoD Corporate Processes... 63
6.1 JCIDS Process ... 63
6.2 PPBE ... 64
6.2.1 POM ... 64
6.2.2 BES ... 64
6.2.3 Entering the Air Force Corporate Process ................................................................................ 64
6.3 Acquisition Strategy ... 66
6.3.1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Acquisition Overview ................................................................... 66
6.3.2 Unmanned Systems Acquisition Management ......................................................................... 67
6.3.4 Budget Investments ... 67
6.3.5 Open Architecture ... 68
6.3.6 Technology Assessment for Tactical UAS ................................................................................ 68
6.4 Relationship with Other Organizations ............................................................................................. 69
6.4.1 Internal DoD Components ... 69
6.4.2. Governmental Departments and Agencies .............................................................................. 71
6.4.3. Industry ... 72
6.4.4. Coalition Partners ... 72
6.4.5. International Organizations ... 72
6.4.6 Lead MAJCOMs ... 73
ANNEX 7- LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 75
7.1 Unique UAS Characteristics and LCM Implications ......................................................................... 75
7.2 Goal #1 Improve Current Sustainment Posture................................................................................ 76
7.3 Goal #2 Ensure Product Supportability for Future Systems ............................................................. 77
7.4 Goal #3: Identify & Invest in Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Sustainability (RAMS)
Technologies with Particular UAS Applicability ................................................................................. 78
ANNEX 8- TRAINING ... 81


- 6 -  


List of Figures  
 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

Figure 1: Joint UAS Group Classification

Figure 2: Potential Mission Sets for UAS

Figure 3: SUAS Family of Systems

Figure 4: Medium System Evolution

Figure 5: Large System Evolution

Figure 6: Special System Evolution

Figure 7: DOTMLPF-P Synchronization- Near Term

Figure 8:  Mid Term – Accelerate Innovation

Figure 9:  Long Term – Fully Integrate UAS  

Figure 10:  Long Term – Full Autonomy  

Figure 11: DoD Corporate Processes

Figure 12: USAF POM Development Timeline

Figure 13: FY10 Notional Timeline

Figure 14: OSD UAS Task Force Structure

Figure 15: LCM Implications


- 7 -
 
 
UNCLASSIFIED


Intentionally Left Blank


- 8 -  


References
 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

Air Force Capability Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA), A5XC, 2007

Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Guidebook, May 2008  

DoD Instruction 4151.22, Condition Based Maintenance Plus, 2 December 2007

Existing Joint Capability Integration and Development System Requirements, A5RI, 2008

Focused  Long-Term  Challenges  Overview (and current Ongoing  Technology  Efforts), Air  Force Research Lab
(AFRL/XP), 13 October 2008

Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memoranda, VCJCS (General James Cartwright), 25 November 2008

Joint UAS Center of Excellence (JCOE) Concept of Operations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, JROCM 229-08,
25 November 2008

OSD Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review UAS ISR Report, USD (I), 2008

OSD FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, OSD AT&L, 6 April 2009

Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Policy” Memo, SAF/AQ, 28 August 2008

US Navy Strategic Vision”, Briefing, OPNAV N882, 18 December 2008


Intentionally Left Blank


- 9 -

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.1   Purpose  
 

This Flight Plan  is an actionable plan to achieve the USAF  vision  for the future of  UAS. The USAF wil implement the actions  described within to evolve UAS  capabilities.   Given  the  dynamic  nature of emerging  technologies, this  Flight Plan  is  a living document  crafted  to be  updated  as  benchmarks  are achieved and emerging technologies proven.  Specifically, this plan outlines initiatives from 2009 to 2047 in  DOTMLPF-P  format that balance the  early  USAF  unmanned  lessons  learned with current  and emerging unmanned technology advancements.  This inaugural plan focuses al  USAF organizations on a common  vision.   The  outline  and  milestones  will  be  articulated  with greater  specificity  through collaborative efforts. The vision is for a USAF positioned to harness increasingly automated, modular, and sustainable UAS  resulting in leaner, more adaptable and tailorable forces that maximize the effectiveness of 21st Century airpower.    

1.2 Assumptions
Ten key assumptions guided the development of the flight plan:
1.   Integration  of  manned and  unmanned systems  increases  capability  across  the  full  range of  military operations for the Joint fight.
2.   UAS  are compel ing  where human  physiology  limits  mission  execution  (e.g. persistence, speed  of reaction, contaminated environment).
3.   Automation with a clear and effective user interface are the keys to increasing effects while potentially reducing cost, forward footprint, and risk.
4.   The  desired  USAF  outcome  is  a product of the  “system”  of  capabilities  (payload, network, and Processing, Analysis and Dissemination (PAD)) and less a particular platform.
5.   Modular systems  with standardized  interfaces  are required for adaptability,  sustainability, and reducing cost.
6.   Agile, redundant,  interoperable and robust command and control  (C2)  creates  the  capability  of supervisory control (“man on the loop”) of UAS.
7.   DOTMLPF-P solutions must be synchronized.
8.   Industry wil  be able to deliver the needed technology in time for system development.
9.   The range, reach, and lethality of 2047 combat operations will necessitate an unmanned system-of-systems to mitigate risk to mission and force, and provide perceive-act line execution.  
10.   The benchmarks outlined in this Flight Plan are achievable within USAF budgetary constraints.


- 14 -  


1.3 Vision


This Flight Plan’s vision is for a USAF:





2.   BACKGROUND

2.1   Basic Environment
UAS  have experienced  explosive growth in recent  history, providing  one of  the  most  “in demand” capabilities the USAF presents to the Joint Force.   The attributes of persistence, efficiency, flexibility of mission, information collection and attack capability have repeatedly proven to be force multipliers across the spectrum of global Joint military operations.  UAS not only provide information to senior operational decision makers, but also directly to Joint and Coalition forces operating in the field or in congested urban environments.  UAS can aid forces in combat and perform strike missions against pre-planned or high-value opportunities, minimizing risk of collateral damage when it is a major consideration.  UAS also have the ability to take advantage of the capability inherent to the Remote Split Operations (RSO) concept to flex assets between areas of responsibility (AORs) based on Joint Force Commander (JFC) and SECDEF priorities.    Most USAF  UAS  are  operated beyond line of  sight (BLOS)  from  geographical y  separated location; therefore  producing  sustained combat capability  more efficiently  with a reduced  forward footprint.  

2.2   UAS Characteristics
An  unmanned aircraft  is  not limited  by  human  performance or physiological  characteristics.   Therefore, extreme persistence and maneuverability are intrinsic benefits that can be realized by UAS.  Given that they  are  unmanned, potential  UAS  operational  environments  can  include  contested  and  denied  areas without exposing a crew to those risks.  Further, the size of the aircraft is not constrained by life support elements  and size of  the  person.   Ultimately  unmanned airpower  can  be carried  in a backpack  with commensurate capabilities.  

Future UAS will require access  to an  interoperable, affordable, responsive and  sustainable tactical network  system  of  systems  capable  of  satisfying Service, Joint,  Interagency,  and  Coalition tactical information exchanges.  This tactical network system will be distributed, scalable and secure.  It includes, but is not limited  to,  human interfaces, software applications  and interfaces, network transport, network services, information services and the hardware and interfaces necessary to form a complete system that delivers tactical mission outcomes.  The tactical network system operates as independent small combat sub-networks connected to each other and to the Global Information Grid (GIG).  The advantages of this structure make worldwide  real-time information  available to the pilot as  well  as  worldwide  real-time dissemination of  information  from  the  UAS.   Terrestrial  based resources  and connectivity  al ow specialized skil s to be called upon on demand when and where needed.  

•   15 -
 
UAS increase the percentage of assets available for operations due to their distributive nature.  It may be possible for  initial  qualification  training of  UAS  crews  to  be  accomplished via simulators  almost entirely without launching an aircraft, enabling a higher percentage of aircraft to be combat coded and available for other operations.  The resulting deployment and employment efficiencies lend greater capability at the same or reduced expense when compared to manned equivalents.  

UAS will adopt a UAS Control Segment (UCS) architecture that is open, standard, scalable and will al ow for rapid addition of modular functionality.  This architecture will enable the warfighter to add capability, offer competitive  options, encourage  innovation  and  increase cost  control.   It  can  also dramatically improve interoperability and data access, and increase training efficiencies.  Flexibility will allow adapting the  man-machine  interface for specific  Military  Service’s  Concept of  Operations (CONOPS)  while maintaining  commonality  on  the  underlying  architecture and computing  hardware.   Furthermore, a Department of Defense (DoD) architecture utilizing a core open architecture model will allow competition among companies to provide new tools like visualization, data archiving and tagging, and auto tracking.

As technologies advance, UAS automation and hypersonic flight will reshape the battlefield of tomorrow.  One  of  the  most important elements  to consider  with  this  battlefield  is  the  potential  for UAS  to  rapidly compress the observe, orient, decide, and act (OODA) loop.  Future UAS able to perceive the situation and act independently with limited or little human input will greatly shorten decision time.  This Perceive-Act line is  critical  to countering  growing adversary  UAS  threats  that seek  automation  capabilities  (ref.  Annex 1).  As autonomy and automation merge, UAS will be able to swarm (one pilot directing the actions of many multi-mission aircraft) creating a focused, relentless, and scaled attack.  

3.   PROCESS
3.1   Methodology
The unique characteristics and attributes inherent in UAS provide the basis to determine future missions where UAS  would enhance Joint  Forces  combat effectiveness.   The  goal  of  this  process  was  to determine appropriate mission areas where UAS would best serve the JFC.  The relevant mission areas were then  prioritized  based on  inherent UAS  capabilities  and  limitations.    Actions  required  to  achieve these capabilities  were viewed through the  lens  of  Joint DOTMLPF-P  to articulate  the  USAF  decisions required to achieve the requisite capabilities.  Since the Flight Plan spans al  systems across all potential missions over a 40-year period, the solutions are assembled as a portfolio of capability milestones over time.   It is  important to note that this  is  not a Capabilities  Based Assessment (CBA). However, this process provides the initial steps for future CBAs and analysis.

The UAS Flight Plan development process consisted of five primary steps:

Step 1: Define UAS-enabled Mission Areas.
Joint strategic documents were reviewed to identify mission areas where UAS could best serve the Joint Force.  The Joint Capability Areas (JCA) describes the portfolios of capabilities that are then applied to meet DoD chal enges.  Services then link their core functions to the JCAs to identify how they contribute to these Joint capabilities.  The USAF core functions are: Nuclear Deterrence Operations, Air Superiority, Space Superiority, Cyberspace Superiority, Command and Control, Global  Integrated  Intelligence Surveil ance and  Reconnaissance, Global  Precision  Attack, Special  Operations, Rapid Global  Mobility, Personnel Recovery, Agile Combat Support and Building Partnerships.  These are broken down further into means (capabilities and associated mission areas) to support the Joint capabilities.  In this process, each of the USAF core functions and the associated means were assessed to determine those that UAS attributes  would best support.  This resulted in a list of current and emerging USAF  UAS-enabled core functions  and  means.   The  UAS-enabled  USAF  means  were  then mapped  to  Combatant Command (COCOM) Integrated Priority  Lists  (IPLs)  to  determine  the capabilities  and mission  areas  that could  be enhanced by future UAS technology investments.

•   16 -
 
Step 2:  Apply Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA) results to identify near- and far-term operational gaps and shortfalls to the defined UAS-enabled mission areas.
The  above UAS-enabled mission  areas  were then  compared  against the  results  of  the  CRRA to determine  where UAS  technologies  provide  the  greatest potential  to mitigate gaps  and shortfalls  to the Joint Force. This resulted in a list of UAS-enabled capability areas.

Step 3: Prioritize UAS-enabled capability areas.
The  capabilities  were sorted first by  whether  they  were priority  shortfalls  for both the  COCOM and the USAF and then by the likelihood an investment in UAS technology could address the shortfall.  Given the weighted priority of the capability and the severity of the shortfalls (as identified in the CRRA), prioritized capabilities and operational mission requirements for UAS investment were developed.

Step 4: Develop Capability Portfolios.
The  prioritized UAS-enabled  capability  areas  were analyzed against a list of  potential  technologies, activities  or process  changes  where execution of, or investment in those changes  would impact UAS functionality, management or employment.  The capabilities were articulated in DOTMLPF-P format and then linked with dependent activities.  Sets of dependant activities that aggregately achieved a definable step toward the Flight Plan vision were designated as a capability portfolio.  The resulting portfolios form a critical path that lead toward the UAS Flight Plan vision.  
  
Step 5: Determine immediate Action Plan.
Using the capability portfolios, prioritized near- to mid-term, USAF DOTMLPF-P  courses  of action  were assessed  for resources  and time anticipated  to implement or effect the  necessary  change.   These courses of action  were shared with other Services to identify  potential areas for teaming.   Some of the critical and time-sensitive courses of action require immediate action.  This set of immediate actions was then presented as a decision briefing to USAF Senior Leaders.

3.2   Implementation Plan
The Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR (DCS/ISR) (HAF/A2) wil  present UAS issues for decision through the normal corporate processes and timelines.  Technology development areas will be integrated through the Air  Force Research Laboratory  (AFRL)  Focused  Long Term  Challenges  (FLTC)  process.   Updates  on UAS actions and decisions required of SECAF/CSAF will be presented on a quarterly basis.  HAF A2 will ensure that the updates are approved across the applicable Deputy Chiefs of Staff and MAJCOMS before they are presented.

3.3   Roles and Responsibilities
The  USAF  initially  relied upon a cross-matrixed  USAF  UAS  Task  Force to invigorate  the nascent UAS expertise.  The FY10 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) continues funding for this organization.



3.4   DOTMLPF-P Immediate Actions:
The  following DOTMLPF-P  immediate  actions  were identified.   These initiatives  are not the comprehensive list of  what must be  done  for the  programs  but are intended to show  the  initial  steps toward the flight plan vision.  As such they will be accomplished if funding and resources can be identified after they are prioritized relative to the existing program development actions:
D:  Assess options for UAS units to support multiple Combatant Commanders (CCDRs) by 4QFY10 O:  Focus Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) on al  components of all types of UAS including Small UAS (SUAS) and High Altitude Airship (HAA) for more effective development and acquisition by 4QFY09 (test-bed for Life Cycle Management Excel ence)

•   17 -
 
O:  Stand up two SUAS squadrons by FY10
T:  Demonstrate High Fidelity Simulator: Up to 100% Initial qualification training (IQT) (MQ-1/9, RQ-4) by
4QFY10
M:  Demonstrate onboard Airborne Sense and Avoid (ABSAA) 3QFY10
M:  Implement improved Multi-Aircraft Control (MAC) in MQ-1/MQ-9 ground control stations (GCS) by
4QFY10
M:  Demonstrate enhanced MAC technology and Concept of Employment (CONEMP) for Airborne
launched SUAS from MQ-1/9 class UAS, for UAS MAC-like teaming and enhanced “through-the-
weather” intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in 4QFY10  
M:  Demonstrate an interoperable, standards-based, Service-oriented open architecture command and
control for MQ-1B/C, MQ-8, MQ-9, RQ-4 by 3QFY10
M:  Demonstrate HAA UAS in 3QFY09
M:  Concept demonstration of MQ-medium-sized (MQ-M)-like modular capability in FY10
M:  Demonstrate MQ-9 Auto Takeoff and Landing Capability (ATLC) by 4QFY10  
M:  Implement protected communications for MQ-1 and MQ-9 by FY14  
M:  Demonstrate UAS Electronic Attack (EA) Capability for MQ-9 by 4QFY10
L:  UAS Leaders: Develop, promote and assign leaders with UAS experience to key enterprise positions
as soon as possible
L:  Define UAS personnel career paths, training and sourcing by 1QFY10
P:  Airspace Integration: Propose comprehensive National Airspace Integration Policy to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) by 4QFY09
P:  Review and provide product support and Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) policy guidance for
future systems fielded through the rapid acquisition process; publish interim guidance by 1QFY10
P:  Validate Flight Plan through Joint Capability Integration Development System (JCIDS) by 4QFY09
P:  Define UAS personnel Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) career paths, training and sourcing by FY10

3.5   DOTMLPF-P Future Portfolio Actions
The immediate actions enable the evolution of the capabilities outlined in Annex 4.  Over time, families of small, medium and large systems wil  be developed to become capable of supporting most air missions.  To achieve this,  the flight plan identifies  two common attributes  that wil   be  realized over time through technological  advancement.   First, modularity  provides  a way  to upgrade, augment or replace technologies while preserving the bulk of one’s investment.  Systems can be managed as a portfolio of potential capabilities able to adjust quickly to the battlefield needs and to grow and adapt as these needs evolve.  Secondly, advances in computing speeds and capacity  over time wil   enable systems to make some decisions and potentially  act on them without requiring human input.  Policy, legal considerations, CONOPS and doctrine wil  determine the level of human input required for specific aspects of missions.  The  interdependent DOTMLPF-P  steps  describe  the increments  of  capabilities  achieved through  the development of these attributes over time.  

4.   EFFECTIVE DATE:  
This document is the United States Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) vision (2009-2047).  
This UAS Flight Plan (FP) is effective upon receipt.  Direct Liaison Authorized (DIRLAUTH).  

•   18 -
 
5.   OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY (OPR):
The office of primary responsibility for implementing this plan, institutionalizing UAS, and coordinating approval of any updates is Colonel Eric Mathewson, HAF A2U.  Colonel Mathewson can be reached at 703-601-4084.  

6.   ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
a.   Modifications to the flight plan will be coordinated through the HAF A2U.
b.   Annex 5, lists the actions the USAF could undertake to accomplish USAF UAS transformational goals and provides specific guidance to implement the actions as approved.


•   19 -
 
ANNEX 1- DOTMLPF-P ASSESSMENT OF UAS THREATS- Classified

1.1   Threats
1.2   Vulnerabilities



•   21 -
 
Intentionally Left Blank


•   22 -
 

ANNEX 2- GAPS AND SHORTFALLS-Classified

2.1 Application of Gaps and Shortfalls


•   23 -
 

Intentionally Left Blank


•   24 -

ANNEX 3- CURRENT PROGRAMS

Figure 1: Joint UAS Group Classification (JCOE CONOPS)
3.1 Small UAS (SUAS)
Small  UAS  represent  a  profound  technological  advance  in  air  warfare by  providing  not  only the commander, but individual service members’ life-saving situational awareness.  The need for situational awareness and full-motion video (FMV) dominates urgent requests from the field.  The USAF recognized the  unique  utility  and  capabilities  of  SUAS  during  initial  phases  of  Operation IRAQI  FREEDOM  (OIF) where the  USAF  purchased Pointer  SUAS  for combat control  units. Furthermore, the SUAS  Family  of Systems  (FoS)  represents  a unique approach and challenge to the larger  manpower structures supporting UAS operations.  SUAS are highly effective in supporting integrated manned and unmanned mission sets beyond those met by the MQ-1/9 and RQ-4.
 
Battlefield Airman Targeting Micro Air Vehicle (BATMAV)  
Wasp III

The Wasp III is  a hand-launched, horizontal-landing SUAS  that carries  an  integrated forward and side-looking electro optical (EO) camera with pan, tilt and zoom.  This modular payload is swappable with an infrared (IR)  imager.   The  aircraft can  be  manually  flown or programmed  with GPS-based autonomous navigation to perform day or night reconnaissance and surveillance missions at low altitude within a range of  three miles.   The  current purchased  inventory  is  221 systems  with 442  aircraft.   Wasp  III is  funded through  USAF  Special  Operations  Command  (AFSOC)  funding lines, using  an  Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite  Quantity  (IDIQ)  contract to accommodate  rapid technology  and  development changes.   This contract is  used by  al   service components  in Special Operations  Command (SOCOM)  to purchase SUAS.

•   25 -  
 
Wasp III has the following performance:
Altitude: Max 1,000 ft ;  Normal Operations:  50-150 ft
Range:  3 miles;  Endurance:  45 minutes
Maximum Speed:  40 mph;   Cruise speed:  20 mph

Force Protection Airborne Surveillance System
RQ-11 Raven
The Raven is a hand-launched, deep stall vertical landing SUAS (Group 1) that carries a dual forward and side-looking pan/tilt/zoom  EO  camera and  an  IR camera.   The  aircraft can  be  manually flown or programmed  with GPS-based  autonomous  navigation  to  perform  day  or night reconnaissance  and surveillance missions at low altitude within a range of 7 to 10 miles.  The current purchased inventory is 36 systems with a total of 108 aircraft.

Raven has the following performance:
Altitude: Max 14,000 ft;  Normal Operations:  150-500 ft
Range:  7-10 miles;  Endurance:  60-90 minutes
Maximum Speed:  60 mph;  Cruise speed:  27 mph

Scan Eagle interim solution:
The Scan Eagle is a catapult-launched, SkyHook land/retrieval SUAS (Group 2) that carries an inertially stabilized  camera turret containing  an  EO  or IR camera that provides  a persistent stare capability  and small vehicle resolution from up to five miles away. The aircraft can be semi-manually flown  by human operators  or programmed  with GPS-based autonomous  navigation to perform  real-time situational awareness missions  and force protection  information missions  at low  altitude with a range of  68  miles. The current inventory is one system with six aircraft.

Scan Eagle has the following performance:
Altitude: Max 16,500 ft;   Normal Operations:  1000 – 2,500 ft
Range:  68 miles ;  Endurance:  20+ hrs
Maximum Speed: 80 mph;  Cruise speed:  55 mph

Raven  and  Scan  Eagle systems  have both been purchased  with Global  War  on  Terrorism  (GWOT) supplemental funding.

3.2  Medium UAS
MQ-1 Predator:
The Predator is an armed, multi-role, long endurance UAS (Group 4) that carries an EO/IR payload, laser target marker, laser illuminator and signal  intelligence  (SIGINT)  payloads. Rated  USAF  pilots  fly  these aircraft by  one of three methods. These methods are: manual flying, semi-autonomous monitored flight and pre-programmed flight. With two data link options, Predators can be flown LOS within approximately 100 miles  of  the  launch and  recovery  base or flown BLOS  via satellite datalinks.    Missions  can  be controlled from the launch base or through remote split operations (RSO) from worldwide-based mission control elements.  The crew and aircraft can re-role to any component of the kil  chain during one mission while performing the following missions and tasks: intel igence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), close air  support  (CAS), combat search and rescue  (CSAR)  support, precision  strike, buddy  laze, convoy overwatch, raid overwatch, target development, and terminal air control.  Predators are used primarily for persistent ISR functions.   The  Predator  force objective  is  185 aircraft, funded  through the  Military Intel igence Program (MIP).

The Predator has the following performance:
Max Altitude: 25,000 ft ;  Employment altitude:  10,000-20,000 ft
Max speed:  120   KIAS;  Loiter speed:  80 KIAS
Operational Endurance:  22 hrs
Max payload: 300 lbs externally

•   26 -

MQ-9 Reaper:
The  Reaper is  an  armed,  multi-role, long  endurance  UAS  that carries  an  EO/IR payload, laser target marker, laser illuminator and synthetic aperture radar (SAR). Seven external hard points allow an open architecture variety of weapon and SIGINT payloads to be carried.  Rated USAF pilots fly these aircraft by one of  three methods.  These methods  are: manual  flying, semi-autonomous  monitored flight  and pre-programmed flight. With two data link options, Reapers can be flown LOS within approximately 100 miles of the launch and recovery base or flown BLOS via satellite datalinks.  Missions can be controlled from the  launch base or through  remote  split operations  (RSO)  from  worldwide-based  mission  control elements.

The crew and aircraft can re-role to any component of the kill chain during one mission while performing  the  following  missions  and tasks: ISR, CAS, CSAR support, precision  strike, buddy  laze, convoy  overwatch, raid overwatch, target development, and terminal  air  control.   Reapers  are used primarily for persistent strike functions while possessing loiter time for ISR functions as well. The Reaper FY10  force  objective  is  319  aircraft.   This  wil   enable a transition  plan for growth to  50  Reaper  and Predator combined combat air patrols (CAP) by 4QFY11 and al  Reaper by FY16.

The Reaper has the following performance:

Max Altitude:  50,000 ft ;   Employment altitude:  25,000-30,000 ft
Max speed:  240 KIAS ;  Loiter speed:  100 KIAS
Operational endurance:  18 hrs
Max payload: 3000 lbs externally

3.3   Large UAS RQ-4 Global Hawk:
The Global Hawk can be operated LOS or BLOS and transmit its data to the USAF Distributed Common Ground  System  (DCGS)  or other nodes  including  the  Army  tactical  exploitation  system  (TES)  for exploitation and dissemination.  The  Global  Hawk  force structure contains  two baseline  models, RQ-4A and RQ-4B, in 4 production blocks, funded by the Military Intelligence Program (MIP).  Seven RQ-4A Block 10 aircraft are equipped with EO, IR, and SAR sensors.  Six RQ-4B Block 20 aircraft will be equipped with the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN).  BACN provides a Tactical Data  Link  gateway  between  Link  16, the  Situation  Airborne  Data Link  (SADL)  and the Integrated Broadcast System (IBS). Through BACN, users of these three systems can share information and form a common  tactical  picture.

Further, BACN provides  an  Internet Protocol  based  networking  capability  so military  networks  can  interface and share content across  both  secure and  open internet connections.   BACN provides the capability to “cross-band” military, civilian and commercial communications systems.  Further, BACN allows  soldiers  on  foot, or platforms  without advanced  communications  systems  to connect via cel ular phones, existing narrow  band radios, or even an airborne  802.11 to the  battle field network.  Forty-two RQ-4B Block 30 aircraft wil  have the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS) with EO, IR, and SAR and the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP) for SIGINT collection.  Twenty-two RQ-4B  Block  40  aircraft will  have the  Multi-Platform  Radar  Technology  Insertion  Program  (MP-RTIP) payload; planned capability  includes  Active Electronically  Scanned Array  (AESA)  radar with concurrent high-resolution SAR imagery, high-range-resolution  (HRR)  imagery, and  robust  Ground  Moving  Target Indicator (GMTI) data.

The ground stations (10 for the multi-INT systems; 3 for the Block 40) consist of a Launch and Recovery Element (LRE) and the Mission Control Element (MCE).  The crew is two pilots (1 for MCE, 1 for LRE), one sensor operator,  and additional  support that  include  one  Quality  Control  (QC)  manager, and one communications technician.

The Global Hawk has the following performance:
Max Altitude:  65,000 ft (Block 10), 60,000 ft (Blocks 20/30/40)  
Max speed:  340 KTAS (Block 10), 320 KTAS (Blocks 20/30/40)  
Max endurance: 28 hrs  
Max payload:  2,000 lbs (Block 10), 3,000 lbs (Blocks 20/30/40)

•   27 -  
 
3.4   GWOT - Supplemental to Baseline Funding
The Predator program has surged its combat air patrol count more than 520 percent since the beginning of the GWOT.  Much of the bill for this surge has been paid through GWOT supplemental funding to cover UAS operational flying hour expenses, rapid materiel upgrades and satellite communications (SATCOM) data link  expenses.   As  the Predator and Reaper programs  transition  into the  future of  global  security, their respective funding is also transitioning into stabilized base line programming.  This “Supp-to-Base” transition, requested by  the SECAF,  is  currently  being evaluated through  departmental  assessments  of funding  needs.   Predator and Reaper Supp-to-Base funding  information  will  be  forthcoming  in the  final report by SAF/FMB.
 
The RQ-4 Global Hawk has no current supp-to-base funding requests.
GWOT funding is now transitioning to Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.
  
3.5   Manpower USAF UAS GOAL:
50 MQ-1/9 CAPs, 3 RQ-4 CAPs by FY11, and 14 Groups of 1-3 SUAS 50 MQ-9 CAPs, 9 RQ-4 CAPs by FY16, and 14 Groups of 1-3 SUAS The  Secretary  of  Defense in response to  COCOM critical  FMV  needs  directed  that Services  maximize UAS  procurement and  fielding.    The  USAF  identified the maximum  manufacturing  production  rates  of critical system components to establish the  USAF UAS goals.  The UAS TF works in close conjunction with  HQ  AF/A1, AFSOC, ANG, AFRC  and other  Major Commands  (MAJCOMs)  to  determine  the  total UAS  community  end-strength  to meet the USAF  UAS  goals  mentioned above.  Like al   combat aircraft, UAS  require  personnel  with sufficient skil s  in  sufficient  numbers  to perform  their  tasks. Currently, increased  system  and mission  complexity  requires  more advanced training.  Similar personnel  models used for manned platforms with regard to duty day and levels of supervision are applicable to UAS.  This applies to maintenance, operators, intel igence and support personnel.

The USAF used these models to determine  the manpower required  to achieve their  goals.  The  largest manpower  requirements  include:  Pilots  (~1650), Sensor Operators  (SO)  (~1440), Mission  Intel  Coordinators  (~900), PAD  (~5300), Maintainers (~5500), and SUAS Operators (~680) for a total UAS community of nearly 15,000 Airmen.   Medium and Large UAS PILOTS:  Currently, the USAF UAS pilot force is approximately 100 short of its Group 4 and  5 requirements.  The  requirement is  to expand  to over 1,100  crews  in the next 3-5 years.  Historical y,  the USAF  manned  UAS  units  using  experienced  pilots. This  strategy  accommodated the rapid acquisition and fielding of an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).  It allowed for short IQT programs (approximately 3 months) and al owed for an immediate injection of the pilots into a near-solo combat environment (e.g. no experienced flight lead or aircraft commander).

However, recent growth has  rendered this  strategy  unsustainable.    The  USAF  has  researched  multiple options  to the challenges of sourcing, training, sustaining and “normalizing” of UAS pilots.  The two primary options that were developed for final consideration are described below.  The USAF elected to conduct a “Beta Test” to determine  the  viability  of  option 1  (described  below); this  is  the only  option  the AF  is  currently evaluating.   Another option that  was  considered (option  2) is  also described below  and is  provided for informational purposes only.

OPTION 1 – Non-traditional pilot:  The USAF is testing a completely new training program with the goal to develop a UAS pilot career field with specialized UAS training distinct from current manned aircraft pilot training.  A non-traditional pilot training path creates an additional source of UAS operators and relieves the UAS  manpower  burden on  the  current Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot Training  (SUPT)  pipeline.  Furthermore, training can be specifically tailored to the needs of the UAS community.    

OPTION 2 - Irregular Warfare (IW) Pilot Track:  An alternative option for a 5th track out of SUPT tailored for UAS pilots is supported by the Combat Air Forces (CAF).  SUPT students would graduate after the T-6 phase with an instrument rating and finish training at a UAS formal training unit (FTU).  These pilots would be capable of filing all Group 4 and 5 UAS requirements as wel  as manned IW platforms such as MC-12W.   HAF/A3/5  in  conjunction  with the applicable MAJCOMS  would determine  any  applicable “rated” requirements  these pilots  could also perform. This  option validates  USAF  commitment to  IW  as  a core USAF mission.

[kushfiend]

wow someone break this down into laymens terms

[Anti_Illuminati]

Medium and Large UAS SO:  USAF UAS Sensor Operators (SO) traditionally came from the intel igence 1N1 Imagery Analyst community (approximately 90%).  There is an increased emphasis from the field for a more aviator centric career field similar to the 1A4 Career Enlisted Aviator (CEA) community.  The USAF reviewed this issue and determined that while UAS SO tasks do demand an aviation-mindset and training, they are not airborne duties.  Though the skil s for UAS SO and 1A4XX are nearly a match, the risks of UAS SO are less than airborne duty.  Requiring an aviator for this duty is unnecessary.  To best manage the SO personnel training and development, CSAF established a new UAS SO cacareer field
(1U1X1).

Medium and  Large UAS  MISSION INTELLIGENCE  COORDINATORS:  The  mission  intelligence coordinator position was created in response to the ever increasing demand on the crew for information integration.  This position is unique to the MQ-1 and MQ-9 because of the heavy emphasis on ISR and the  fusion  of  data from  numerous  terrestrial  based  communication  systems.   Currently  this  position  is manned from several sources, primarily 1N0 squadron intelligence positions and 14N intelligence officers. Crew duty days closely mirror those of the UAS crew.  The USAF is actively addressing this position anddeveloping courses of action (COAs) to standardize it.   

Medium and Large UAS MAINTENANCE:  Similar to the  other manpower intensive  positions,  the  UAS maintenance community  is  proactively  developing  long-term  normalization  plans  that meet Joint requirements  while balancing  USAF  manpower goals.

Presently  all  Global  Hawk  organizational-level maintenance is USAF.  In the case of MQ-1/9 however, 75% of ACC and 100% of AFSOC organizational-level  flight line maintenance requirements  are performed  by  contractors.   HAF/A4/7  and HQ  ACC  both favor 100% replacement of organizational level flight line contractors with funded military authorizations.  OPTION #1  –  MILITARY  AND CONTRACT  MAINTENANCE  MIX:    As  UAS  continue to proliferate; contract maintenance has become a necessity.  Further, contractors do not affect the USAF end strength and many of the systems today have demonstrated success with contract maintenance.  OPTION #2    –  MILITARY  MAINTENANCE:  This  option will  normalize UAS  maintenance, enable development of  a  robust  training  pipeline  and  build  a sustainable  career  field for the  fastest growing segment of USAF aircraft maintenance.

This option is more responsive, and potentially less expensive.  PAD/DCGS: As demand grows for UAS, so does the demand for intelligence analysts and the products they  generate.   The  USAF  chartered an  ISR Forces  Cross  Functional  Working  Group tasked  with planning  for new  growth to meet this  increase  in  demand.   The  importance of  solving  the  manpower shortfall is imperative as technology continues to outpace the USAF ability to source and train analysts.  The USAF is working in close conjunction with AFRC to develop solutions to PAD manpower challenges.  Additionally, the  ANG  is  standing  up  two new  locations  to mitigate this  capability  challenge.   Shortfalls exist due to the  long training timeframes  required  for linguists  (1N3) and the total  training  capacity available for  imagery  analysts  (1N1).

The  USAF  successfully  resourced  manpower  to  meet the accelerated  UAS  need  in the  FY10 POM, but sourcing  and  training  airman  while surging operations remains  difficult.   Directing  the advanced  research  agencies  such  as  Defense Advanced  Research Projects  Agency  (DARPA)  and AFRL to  develop  technological  solutions  that  automate  many  labor intensive functions inherent to USAF DCGS and PAD is being explored. SUAS:   The  USAF  is  committed to determining  the  correct method  to man  a sustainable normalized SUAS career force.  AFSOC is the lead command for SUAS.  Today, SUAS operations are considered additional  duties  to most other career  fields,  such as  security  forces, relieving  the  typical  pressures  of sourcing the crews.  Most SUAS operators are also the maintainer and SO.  However this additional duty adds a significant workload to units operating SUAS.

Group 1 SUAS are employed by Battlefield Airmen and Security  Forces  for the  specific  purposes  of  battlefield situational  awareness, force protection and aiding  placement of  fires.   Considered a piece of  equipment and an  additional  qualification, Group 1 SUAS are employed in tandem with other individual capabilities necessary for mission accomplishment.  The  Battlefield Airmen  requirement, currently  the only  Air  Force Program  of  Record, states  the SUAS must be organically carried, launched, operated and recovered by a single individual.  The initial attempt at fielding an  interim  Group 2  SUAS  called  Scan  Eagle,  demonstrated the  requirement for  dedicated SUAS operators and maintenance operators.   

SUAS  Operator:    The  individual  responsible  for the  safe ground  and flight operation  of  the  unmanned aircraft and onboard systems.   These operators  are equivalent to  the  pilot-in-command of  a manned aircraft.    Regardless  of  the piloting method  used, the  individual  is  piloting  a  USAF  aircraft requiring aviation  skil s.   Those skil s  will  be  taught to individuals  through the  USAF  training processes  and will produce a certified pilot/operator for that particular group vehicle.  Group 2 and 3 operators may require a viable and distinct career field that should be incorporated into the overal  USAF career pyramid.  SUAS Sensor Operator (SO):  The SUAS SOs may be dual qualified as a SUAS operator.  This position mainly  applies  to the  multi-mission  UAS.   Most USAF  Group  1 and 2 SUAS  do not have a separate sensor operator requirement.
 
POTENTIAL Group 2 SOLUTION:  AFSOC is developing a sensor operator solution that will al ow them to cross flow  from  manned ISR systems  to large UAS  sensor operators  and then  transition to Group 3 UAS Pilots.  The rapid fielding of small UAS may al eviate the current shortfall for UAS capabilities such as  FMV.   Lessons  learned  from  early  UAS  experiences  provide  the  impetus  to develop  a professional career path and appropriately man the squadrons required to execute the USAF mission (for all sizes of UAS).

SOLUTIONS:
The  USAF  must immediately  initiate  positive actions  at all  levels  to establish a  long term,  sustainable, normalized UAS  culture.   This  will  require senior leadership involvement, personnel  and development processes, and realistic training development. Management must:

1.   Program for the required manpower needs to meet the USAF UAS goals.
2.   Assess  and adjust UAS  pilot development path,  to include incentive pay  and career  incentive pay issues, as required.
3.   Choose between CEA E-WSO and ground-only sensor operator. 
4.   Resource the labs for the development of automated PAD systems.
5.   Assess maintenance strategy for organizational-level UAS aircraft and communications maintenance and adjust programming in FY12.
6.   Lay appropriate foundations so SUAS can correctly develop manpower requirements.

Senior leader  involvement is  imperative to ensure  that the  personnel  planning and development processes support the needs of the UAS community.  Leaders must ensure that processes are in-place and followed for requirement identification, development and tracking to support a highly reliable UAS end state.  The personnel process  must fully support UAS needs  while balancing the needs of other USAF missions. 

It is  expected  that the  UAS  community  will  grow  significantly  in the  near  term.   As  the  technology advances (especially with multi-aircraft control and autonomy) the community will overcome many of the current manpower challenges.  This is significantly dependent upon a high level of attention given to the technological enablers chartered in this Flight Plan in order to realize this vision.   

3.6   Human Systems Integration (HSI)
HSI  is  a  disciplined and  interactive  systems  engineering  approach  to  integrate human  considerations, including  human  capabilities  and limitations, into  system  development,  design, and life cycle management.  Doing so will improve total system performance and reduce cost of ownership.  The major domains  of  HSI  are:   manpower, personnel, training,  human  factors  engineering, environment, safety, occupational health, survivability, and habitability. (AFI 63-1201). 
•   30 -

As  our  USAF  modernizes,  UAS  will  continue  to provide  new  and  improved  capabilities  that  wil   require unique  interfaces  with  other operations, systems, and operators  with a  wide  spectrum  of  skills  andtraining to operate, maintain, support and sustain these systems and interfaces.  Regardless of where the human interfaces occur, or the sophistication of the system and its flight control capability, the ultimate success of the systems will depend on the effectiveness of the human interfaces.  The enabling concepts, front end  analyses, and  the  requirements  related to the human  must be  captured  early  and  then continuously  applied  within the acquisition processes.   High  Performance Teams  (HPTs),  Integrated Process Teams (IPTs), working groups, and program offices must be able to comprehensively  address the human-centric issues for all UAS systems.   The requirements for these HSI solutions wil  be defined and advocated  by  the  lead MAJCOM for the  weapons  system, either  ACC, AMC or  AFSOC.    An  HSI representative wil   be  assigned  as  a  core member  on  every  UAS  HPT.   This  representative will be provided with reach-back capability to each HSI domain.  USAF HSI Subject Matter Experts (SME) and HSI  domain practitioners  will  assist the  UAS  community  in addressing  the various  human-centered domains  in  the  requirements  and systems  engineering  processes.   These practitioners  and  SMEs  will serve as focal points for integration of those concerns into UAS requirements, technology development, systems  design  and development, manufacturing, test and evaluation, operation, sustainment, and disposal.   

To ensure the human is considered early in the UAS decision matrix, HSI will be:
 
1.   Applied in the front end analyses (Functional Area Analysis (FAA), Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA)).
2.   Addressed in the DOTMLPF analytical solution process.
3.   A key consideration in Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) planning and execution.
4.   Used  to develop  and support source selection  criteria and weighting  for contracted  development efforts.
5.   Used to conduct proactive domain trade-offs to facilitate total system performance.
6.   Assessed  throughout the  system  life-cycle, particularly  in Test &  Evaluation with measurable and testable requirements.   
The USAF Human Systems Integration Office (AFHSIO) and AFRL 711th Human Performance Wing will provide  the organizational  expertise for USAF  HSI.    These organizations  will  assist UAS  teams  in conducting HSI analyses and provide SME support to HPTs, IPTs, working groups, and program offices.     

•   31 -

ANNEX 4- EVOLUTION OF CAPABILITIES
4.1 Family of Systems:
Future UAS  should  be multi-mission, all-weather,  net-centric, modular, open  architecture  and  employ leveraging appropriate  levels  of  autonomy. They  should also be  able to carry  any  standard payload within in its  performance envelope,  with  dial-a-yield,  dial-an-effect   and be multi-mode capable. Additionally, some platforms may consider optionally manned capability.  Modularity is the ability to mix and match weapons and sensors to meet given mission requirements on a given platform.  Furthermore, modularity is the key enabler for UAS mission agility, flexibility, adaptability, growth capability and mission effectiveness that encourage innovation and low costs.  Modularity provides the way to upgrade, augment or replace technologies while preserving the bulk of one’s investment. Beyond the limits of current DoD Research, Development, Testing  and Evaluation  (RDT&E), developing  a modular system  is  a way  to leverage discoveries and developments that happen elsewhere.  Open Architecture implements publicly available components  whenever possible allowing  competition  among multiple  suppliers.

This  concept extends from the  airframe and payloads to supporting network systems to the  ground stations used for aircraft/payload control  and management.   The  UAS  FoS  can  be  managed  as  a portfolio of  potential capabilities, able to adjust quickly to the battlefield needs and to grow and adapt as these needs evolve.  The  envisioned capabilities  will  be  implemented  as  a series  of  incremental  advancements  across  the DOTMLPF spectrum. As technologies are developed, they wil  be demonstrated in operational y relevant increments  so they  can further mature.   Through  this  process  the force provider  can  refine  the requirement and al   other  DOTMLPF  actions  can  be  synchronized.   This  requires  a robust system  of systems  test and evaluation  capability  to  rapidly  transition  increments  of  capability  from  research and technology development to operational fielding.

Modularity enables multi-aircraft, multi-payload and multi-mission flexibility for the joint force. A system of systems  enables  cost effective  measures  that increase capabilities  by  distributing  weapon  and sensor capabilities across a formation of aircraft.  Individual vehicle capabilities and payloads can be tailored and scaled to mission needs.  The avionics architecture and sensors on the aircraft must be capable of rapid changes of payload types and provide users and maintainers with “plug and play” capability.   The USAF will incorporate an Enterprise Architecture for Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) simulation called the LVC Integrating Architecture (LVC-IA).  The future UAS must be interoperable with the LVC-IA so it can arrive “ready to fly” at any range or with any simulated blue force or opposition force (OPFOR) during training, testing, and similar activities.

A  move toward an  interoperable service-oriented  architecture (SOA)  enables  modularity  and protects investment in unique subsystems, releasing the Services from proprietary bonds.  On large, medium and some small  systems  an  open  architecture wil   facilitate modular system  components. SOA  enables modularity within a family of systems that enable interchangeable platforms and controls as shown below in Figure  2.   Well  managed  interfaces  change more slowly  than the technologies  that drive  the subsystems  development.   Adopting  and  maintaining  standard UAS  interfaces  (e.g. industry, international)  protects  the    customer’s    investment in developing  new  subsystems.   Architectures developed to support this flight plan wil  be built, approved and governed in accordance with AFI 33-401, Air Force Enterprise Architecture.

Autonomy  will  be  incorporated where it increases  overal   effectiveness  of  UAS.   Today  primarily automation will be implemented to decrease operator workload.  This will initially include auto takeoff and land and transit operations.   It differs  from  full  autonomy  in  that the system  will  follow  preprogrammed decision logic. It wil  however be more dynamic than simple preprogrammed flight in that the aircraft will alter its course automatically based on internal sensors and inputs from external sources to include traffic and weather  avoidance. This  will  mature to conduct benign  mission  operations  in the near future. The DOTMLPF-P actions needed to achieve full autonomy are outlined later in this annex.  This autonomy will also apply to ground operations, maintenance and repair.  Aircraft wil  integrate with other vehicles and personnel on the ground during launch and recovery to include auto taxi.  Touch labor will also begin with auto ground refueling and stores loading.

In the future increasing levels of touch maintenance and repair will be performed by autonomous ground systems.  The near-term concept of swarming consists of a group of partially autonomous UAS operating in support of both manned and unmanned units in a battlefield while being monitored by a single operator.  Swarm technology will al ow the commander to use a virtual world to monitor the UAS both individually and as a group.  A wireless ad-hoc network wil  connect the UAS to each other and the swarm commander.  The UAS  within the  swarm  will  fly  autonomously  to an area of  interest (e.g. coordinates, targets  etc.)  while also avoiding col isions  with other  UAS  in the  swarm.   These UAS  will  automatically  process  imagery requests from low level users and will “detect” threats and targets through the use of artificial intelligence (AI), sensory information and image processing.  Swarming will enable the UAS network to deconflict and assign the best UAS to each request.

Loyal wingman technology differs from swarming in that a UAS wil  accompany and work with a manned aircraft in the  AOR to conduct ISR, air  interdiction,  attacks  against adversary  integrated  air  defense systems (IADS), offensive counter air (OCA) missions, command and control of micro-UAS, and act as a weapons  “mule,”  increasing the  airborne weapons  available to the  shooter.   This  system  is  capable of self-defense, and is  thus, a survivable platform  even  in  medium  to high threat environments. The  loyal wingman UAS could also be a “large” UAS that acts as a cargo train or refueling asset.  Sets of platform capabilities for FoS: Actionable investment strategies must be tied to expected needs.  The  priority  for the  near-term  capability  development and fielding can  be  derived  from  CRRA and IPL analysis. Sets of platform capabilities can be combined into potential mission sets.  These mission sets can  be  notionally  linked  to the  expected  retirement of  platforms  to identify  the  recapitalization opportunities. Figure  2 shows  the  notational  mission  sets  realized  by  overlaying the technology development timelines on to these recapitalization opportunities.

Figure 2:  Potential sets of platform capabilities for UAS

The  current projections  of  technology  development continue  to show  a strong link  between future
missions and size of platform.  Size, weight and power capacity of an aircraft will define payload options, performance and therefore missions.  For example, propulsion and munitions wil  advance, but nano and small  systems  are not realistically  expected  to deliver significant kinetic  effects  over intercontinental distances.  This high level view of expected timing of capability needs and technology readiness wil  be organized by families of platforms (nano/micro, small, medium, large and special).

4.2 Small UAS FoS
AFSOC is  the USAF  lead for  SUAS.   AFSOC devised a FoS  approach with four  major subclasses  to
include: the Nano/Micro, Man-portable, Multi-mission and Air-launched UAS.  This approach includes the processes, equipment, procedures and ground control stations that should be MAC-enabled and network capable, but not constrained by either.

Figure 3: SUAS Family of Systems
Nano/Micro SUAS (Group 1): Aircraft capable of conducting a variety of indoor and outdoor reconnaissance sensing missions using micro-electronic machines (MEMs) technology.  The system provided to individual battlefield airman must be mobile and carried within his/her individual load.
Man-portable SUAS  (Group  2):  Aircraft that address  the  need of  small  Battlefield Airmen  teams  for a more robust, greater endurance, mobile, man-portable system  carried  by  the individual  team  in either mounted or dismounted operations.  These systems also have the ability to sense, engage and destroy threat targets with focused lethality at close ranges within 10km.

Air-launched  SUAS  (AL-SUAS)  (Group  2 or  3):    Aircraft  that address  the  need for off-board sensing from manned and unmanned aircraft. These can be controlled from the parent aircraft or surface teams trained to operate them.  AL-SUAS provide the flexibility to conduct off-board sensing missions, focused lethal  engagements  and multiple diverging target tracking.   Air-launched capability  includes  two basic threads – expendable and recoverable assets that provide unblinking eye coverage to maintain chain of custody.

•   35 -
 
Multi-mission SUAS (Group 3): Aircraft that close the gap between man-portable and Predator and/or Reaper mission allocation and capabilities.
 
SUAS  Game-changing  Capabilities:  The  asymmetric  game-changing  capability  of  SUAS  impacts  all levels of conflict.  The USAF must employ a FoS approach that provides capabilities which are integrated, flexible and  effective.  SUAS must be integrated to  support IW while continuing preparation for a near-peer  anti-access  threat.   SUAS  will  play  a key  role  in supporting  manned assets  in engaging more targets, providing decoys, jamming and disrupting enemy attacks.  Other nations are allocating increased resources  to develop SUAS  to counter and possibly  negate expensive and more capable systems  by saturating  them  with large  numbers  of  SUAS  simultaneously.   SUAS  will  play  a key  role in warfare including emerging counter-UAS missions due to their expendability and low cost.  It is possible that the next inexpensive asymmetric threat wil   be a SUAS, i.e. an “airborne IED.”   Any synchronization efforts must contain key steps and milestones affecting the entire USAF UAS spectrum of capabilities.  There are DOTMLPF-P actions that are required for the normalization and integration of SUAS into the USAF manned/unmanned force mix.
   
4.2.1   SUAS Doctrine:

Nano/Micro:    Development of  the nano/micro class  will  introduce  capabilities  never before realized.

These include  the  ability  to perform  surveillance  missions  inside buildings  and  in confined  spaces.  Further, the use of bio-mechanical technologies will require legal and doctrinal development on how these potentially lethal systems are employed.   

Air-launched:  Navy and USAF are leading efforts on air-launched systems.  Joint doctrinal shifts may be needed to address how AL-SUAS are employed.  Past lessons should be applied to use of AL-SUAS to enable  more effective manned-unmanned defensive  counter  air,  suppression  of  enemy  air  defenses (SEAD), and special operations missions.   

Multi-mission:    The  full  spectrum  of  SUAS  employment,  from  tactical  (e.g.  armed  overwatch, force protection) to strategic (e.g. EA, high value target (HVT)) game-changing missions, wil  require a thorough review of Joint doctrine to address al ocation versus apportionment decisions from the JFC to the organic level.

4.2.2   SUAS Organization:

Nano/Micro, Man-portable, and  Air-launched:    No  organizational  changes  are anticipated  for these classes of UAS.

Multi-mission:   Multi-mission  aircraft  capability  requires  the  establishment  of  SUAS  squadrons  which support overarching  air-expeditionary  units.    Currently, flight operations  are conducted  inconsistently across  AFSOC, USAF  Office of  Special  Investigation (AFOSI)  and  Force Protection forces.   Aircraft maintenance, logistics, flight authorization, safety risk mitigation and crew currencies are not conducted and documented  to a common  standard appropriate for this  class  of  vehicle by  all  users.   Since these platforms  have significant kinetic  energy  based  on  their  weight and  speed, they  can  cause significant damage.  Mishaps could be avoided by applying sound operational risk management. The best practices developed within AFSOC augmented by flight considerations developed by airmen across Services over the  past 60  years  need  to be  codified in SUAS  flight standards.

This  organization  is  essential  to successfully develop and implement a safe flying program.  Tactics from operational lessons learned can be  developed  and employed  across  all  SUAS  platforms  to support all  missions.   This  is  particularly significant for weapons employment and integration with air and ground operations.  These squadrons wil  also be  essential  to advance integration of  SUAS  with other aircraft in the National  Airspace  System (NAS). Sound maintenance and logistics can be developed through consolidation to increase the system effectiveness rates. Further, SUAS capable of supporting total FMV orbit requirements are not tasked for those missions because crews are not trained and reach back has not been funded or implemented for these systems.   

•   36 -

4.2.3   SUAS Training: 
 
The USAF must address training issues from a Joint perspective due to the proliferation of SUAS in al  the Services.  The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) recently directed Joint training for new Group 2 Small  Tactical  UAS.   This  training  includes  Basic  Qualification Training (BQT)  (screening  and airmanship), Initial Qualification Training (IQT) and Mission Qualification Training (MQT).  The first step in institutionalizing and standardizing SUAS operations in the USAF is for the SECAF to approve Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 11-5 “Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rules, Procedure, and Service.”  Once approved, AFPD 11-5 will  generate  15 Air  Force Instructions  (AFIs)  that wil   govern SUAS  training, standardization/evaluation,  and operations  for the  entire  USAF.   Further, USAF  will  support  follow on Joint training for al  SUAS IQT fol owed by USAF-unique MQT.  In addition to SUAS operators, USAF wil  develop specialized training for SUAS maintenance personnel to develop their unique skil  sets.

4.2.4   SUAS Materiel:

Simulators  must be  developed  that  address  USAF  SUAS  and  utilize  Joint training  assets  where
applicable.    Emerging  MEM technology  wil   require  new  procedures  and acquisition strategies  as  rapid technology  turn-over will  dictate faster re-capitalization. The  integration of  AL-SUAS  onto  manned and unmanned platforms  will  require  platform  modifications  and potential  materiel  solutions.   Logistical structures will need to address streamlined SUAS replacement and repair in theater.   

4.2.5   SUAS Leadership and Education:

Education of SUAS-unique capabilities may need to be incorporated into al  levels of Professional Military Education (PME).  The Air Force Learning Committee (AFLC) wil  vet this through the Force Management Development Council (FMDC) for the appropriate level of emphasis and curriculum development.

4.2.6   SUAS Personnel: 

USAF  needs  to  consider  how  to develop  a SUAS  career  path.    Further,  the USAF  must address  the impact of  SUAS  on personnel  performing  PAD.    PAD  has  traditionally  been  reserved  for larger ISR systems.   Air-launched  and  Multi-mission  aircraft  will  provide the  opportunity  to expand globally networked ISR capabilities.  Both these SUAS FoS members wil   impact PAD manning as the systems mature and the demand for SUAS products increase.   
 
4.2.7   SUAS Facilities:

Nano/Micro, Man-portable:  Minimal impact
Air-launched:  Special storage facilities wil  be required for AL-SUAS.
Multi-mission:    New  facilities  will  be  required to support Tactical  UAS  squadrons.  Further, SUAS missions  require access  to  live fire ranges  and realistic  Joint urban training  areas  with the  capacity  to support integrated manned and unmanned flight operations.

4.2.8   SUAS Policy: 

Operation of SUAS requires policy development to reflect their operational construct and rapid technology turnover. To the extent necessary and practical, policy for SUAS mirrors that of policy already established for manned aviation activities. 


•   37 -


4.2.9   SUAS Summary: 
 
USAF must fully integrate SUAS and embrace the capabilities to maximize the effectiveness of the total force.  The USAF must address manning of SUAS and tactical UAS squadrons.  SUAS boost the USAF involvement in Irregular Warfare and wil   play  a significant role across  the  full  Range of  Military Operations (ROMO).   

4.3 Medium FoS 2020 to 2047

Figure 4: Medium System Evolution

Currently the USAF is analyzing the need for a follow on to the MQ-9, designated the MQ-X.  Originally this  system  was  to be  rapidly  fielded and would share many  characteristics  with the current fleet  of aircraft.   As  MQ-X  analysis  and development slip, more MQ-Ma  capabilities  can be  incorporated in the design.  The USAF vision for a medium sized UAS (MQ-M) by 2020 is an enhanced autonomy, modular, open  architecture and networked  system  built around a common  core airframe.    This  aircraft can  be tailored with capabilities  shaped to the  mission  needs  of  the  supported  commander  and allocated as needed  throughout theaters.

With RSO, global  employment of  any  of  these  aircraft from  any  GCS worldwide will  maximize capability  available to the Joint Force.   The  envisioned  aircraft of the  future should  incorporate modular  structural  elements  as  well  as  payloads  for optimal  mission  performance.  The sensors will be interchangeable so the payload can be optimized for the assigned Joint missions and new  capabilities  can  be  integrated without redesign of  the  platform.   An open  architecture interface for weapons  al ows  air-to-ground and  air-to-air  weapons  employment from  current and  future weapon inventories.  As the MQ-M evolves over time an air refueling configuration in the 2030 timeframe will allow the aircraft to serve as a small tanker, extending the missions of other aircraft.  The global distribution of responsive and  flexible multi-role, medium-sized  UAS  will  serve combatant commanders  with a networked scalable capability with a minimum forward footprint.
 
The acquisition and fiscal efficiency of MQ-M manifests itself through a single airframe configurable for all mission  sets  including Air  Interdiction, ISR, CAS,  EA,   Communications  Gateway  and Air  Mobility missions.

As senior leaders allocate assets throughout theaters, the same airframe will be deployed to all locations  along with payload  modules  for the  mission  sets.   In  a  fiscally  constrained environment, this system  of  systems  allows  for consolidated logistics, maintenance  and training  centered  on  a single airframe core. This may include an optionally-manned capability. 
Evolving from our current medium-sized unmanned aircraft today (Predator and Reaper), this long range vision of medium-sized core UAS wil  go through three phases of evolution, MQ-Ma, MQ-Mb, and MQ-Mc.  MQ-Ma wil   be networked, capable of  partial  autonomy, al -weather  and modular  with capabilities supporting electronic warfare (EW), CAS, strike and multi-INT ISR missions’ platform.  Each aircraft wil  be flown from an advanced, MAC-capable, ground control stations.

Automation will be incorporated for fully  automatic  takeoff  and land and as  automation  matures, in-transit flight  wil   be automated so operators  will  direct but not be  required to control  aircraft from  launch until  on  station  to conduct the mission. Autonomous ground taxi will be introduced as technology required for safe operations matures.  The  first level  of  loyal  wingman  will  be incorporated  to increase the  mission  effectiveness  of  manned platforms. The baseline capabilities of MQ-Ma will influence the AOA and shape the subsequent system development for the  MQ-X.   The  extent  of  impact will  be determined by  MQ-X  timelines.   As  MQ-X program decisions are extended into the future, the more they will incorporate MQ-Ma capabilities.
 
MQ-Mb wil  merge capabilities from the MQ-9 and MQ-X/MQ-Ma into a system with a wider spectrum of capabilities.  This may include SEAD, Air Interdiction, Special Ops ISR, the ability to receive air refueling, aeromedical  evacuation and  personnel  recovery. Modular and autonomous  technologies  advance the level of MQ-Mb flexibility and effectiveness for the Joint Force Commander.  Cooperative engagement wil  link  UAS  into  formations  to simplify  enroute transit  and enable machine-to-machine  links  between manned and unmanned aircraft. Autonomy  will  also enable  some ground  touch maintenance such  as aircraft ground refueling. SWARM technology wil  al ow multiple MQ-Mb aircraft to cooperatively operate in a variety of lethal and non-lethal missions at the command of a single pilot.

Finall y, the  MQ-Mc  will  possess  the  full  spectrum  of capabilities  to serve all  combatant commanders world-wide  for most missions.   Through  technology  advancements, MQ-Mc  wil   incorporate the capabilities  of  all  previous  generation  MQ-M aircraft in addition to executing  new  missions  such as defensive counter air (DCA), Strategic Attack, Missile Defense and SEAD.
4.4 Large-size Unmanned Aircraft System 2020 to 2047

Figure 5: Large System Evolution
The  USAF  Vision  for a large-sized  UAS  (MQ-L)  by  2020 is  similar to the  medium-sized UAS  evolution leveraging autonomous, modular and open architecture technologies.   The  MQ-L will  be capable of performing today’s manned heavy aircraft missions with one common core airframe.   

•   39 -
 
Fil ing urgent COCOM needs  first, the  MQ-La, with SAR/GMTI advanced SIGINT  capabilities, will complement the Global Hawk in multi-INT ISR missions.  The MQ-La has the potential to replace other large manned battle management command and control (BMC2) platforms such as Joint Surveillance and Target Attack  Radar  System  (JSTARs)  and Airborne Warning  and Control  System  (AWACS)  as  they approach recapitalization. Manpower requirements  will  be reduced  during  loiter  and  transit-operations due to increased automation and autonomy.  These efficiencies are amplified when multiple large payload aircraft are teamed together through loyal wingmen technology under the direction of one pilot. 

The  all-weather MQ-Lb  will  be  a multi-mission  endurance aircraft capable of  ISR, EW  communications gateway and air mobility operations. These capabilities wil  enable a Large UAS FoS approach through modularity.  Appropriate sets  of  payloads  wil   “plug and play”  in a bay.    Some of the  potential  payloads include ISR, EA, BMC2, pallet lift capability or fuel tanks.  Autonomy  will increase for auto take off and land seamlessly integrated with civil and military traffic. Loyal wingmen will mature such that formations of manned and unmanned transport aircraft will disperse to land at point of need separately from each other.  As technologies mature, ground operations from taxi through ground refueling and standard pallet loading will  be  conducted  with only  human  monitoring  of  autonomous  actions.

For  this  and the follow  on platform, Air Mobility Command (AMC) requirements will be balanced with Air Combat Command (ACC) ISR requirements. The MQ-Lc common core airframe wil  serve as the foundation for all missions requiring a large aircraft platform.   In addition  to  MQ-Lb  mission  sets, the  MQ-Lc  will  harness  autonomous  and modular technologies  to present capabilities  to the Joint Force Commander  that include air  mobility, airlift, air refueling, EW, multi-INT  ISR, strategic attack, global  strike, CAS, air  interdiction  and humanitarian assistance operations.  The evolution of technologies to accomplish this wil  begin with predictable flight scenarios, such as large cargo delivery services. This concept wil  develop into col aborative systems that can  optimize multi-aircraft mission  effectiveness.    Applicable  technologies  are being  developed and demonstrated in laboratories and universities today.   

4.5 Special Category System

Figure 6: Special System Evolution


•   40 -
 
The USAF vision for specialized UAS (figure 6) wil  set a number of foundational principles to guide their development and ensure compatibility  with other systems.  These are systems where aircraft design  is integral to mission success and must be built as open architecture, non-proprietary systems to allow for cost-effective upgrades and competitive integration.  Where possible, payloads must be modular in nature to al ow  for acquisition  efficiency  while maximizing  operational  flexibility.  Final y, extreme  performance parameters  such as  ultra-long endurance or hypersonic  flight will  demand high  levels  of  autonomy.  These systems may require reconsideration of maintenance and logistics support in order to adequately service the aircraft. The sensitive nature of future specialized UAS wil  likely drive these programs to be developed in the classified environment.
 
The maturity of the technologies required for the representative missions vary widely.  Stealth technology sufficient for some threats is available today, but stealth technologies that would al ow long loiter in a high threat environment requires  further development. Extremely  long  endurance platforms, including  high altitude bal oons or large lifting surface aircraft, are under development and could be available in the near to mid-term time frame. The longest lead technology of the three depicted are hypersonic systems.  The only truly hypersonic vehicle flown today is the Space Shuttle. Propulsion technology and materials that can  withstand the extreme heat  wil   likely  take 20  years  to develop.   This  technology  will  be the next generation  air  game-changer.  Therefore the  prioritization  of  the  funding for the  specific  technology development should not wait until the emergence of a critical COCOM need.

4.6   Path to Autonomy- DOTMLPF-P Synchronization
Advances in computing speeds and capacity wil  change how technology affects the OODA  loop. Today the role of technology is changing from supporting to fully participating with humans in each step of the process. In 2047 technology wil  be able to reduce the time to complete the OODA loop to micro or nano-seconds.  Much like a chess master can outperform proficient chess players, UAS will be able to react at these speeds and therefore this loop moves toward becoming  a “perceive and act” vector.  Increasingly humans  will  no  longer be  “in the  loop”  but rather  “on  the  loop”  –  monitoring  the  execution  of  certain decisions.  Simultaneously, advances in AI will enable systems to make combat decisions and act within legal and policy constraints without necessarily requiring human input. 

Authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military  leaders resolving legal and ethical questions.   These include the appropriateness of machines having this ability, under  what  circumstances  it should be  employed, where responsibility  for mistakes  lies  and what limitations should be placed upon the autonomy of such systems. The guidance for certain mission such as  nuclear  strike may  be  technical y  feasible before UAS  safeguards  are developed.   On that issue  in particular, Headquarters  Air  staff  A10  wil   be  integral  to develop  and vet through  the Joint Staff  and COCOMS the roles of UAS in the nuclear enterprise.  Ethical discussions and policy decisions must take place in the near term in order to guide the development of future UAS capabilities, rather than al owing the development to take its own path apart from this critical guidance. 
 
Assuming the decision is reached to al ow some degree of autonomy, commanders must retain the ability to refine  the  level  of  autonomy  the systems  wil   be  granted by  mission  type,  and in some cases  by mission phase, just as they set rules of engagement for the personnel under their command today. The trust required  for increased  autonomy  of  systems  wil   be developed  incrementally.   The  systems’ programming  wil   be  based on  human  intent,  with humans  monitoring the execution  of  operations  and retaining the  ability  to override  the  system  or  change  the  level  of  autonomy  instantaneously  during the mission.  To achieve a “perceive and act” decision vector capability, UAS must achieve a level of trust approaching that of humans charged with executing missions. The synchronization of DOTMLPF-P actions creates a potential  path to this  full  autonomy. Each step  along  the  path requires  technology  enablers  to achieve their  full  potential.   This  path begins  with immediate  steps  to maximize UAS  support to CCDR.   Next, development and fielding  will  be  streamlined, actions  wil   be  made to bring  UAS  to the front as  a cornerstone of  USAF  capability, and  finally  the portfolio steps  to achieve the  potential  of  a fully autonomous system would be executed.

[Anti_Illuminati]

4.6.1   DOTMLPF-P Synchronization Near Term

Figure 7: DOTMLPF-P Synchronization- Near Term
The first portfolio step links dependent DOTMLPF-P actions related to increasing operational efficiencies.  MAC  applies  today’s  technology  to  automate  basic  mission  profiles  with man  in  the  loop  to  multiply operational efficiency. The portfolio of critical actions to increase operational efficiencies include doctrinal changes  that strengthen  the  chain  of  command for network  enabled  operations, organizational  and materiel  actions  to make MAC a reality, and  training efficiencies  garnered  through  materiel, personnel and policy actions. Each of these actions is depicted along a DOTMLPF-P stratified timeline as a colored triangle. Red triangles represent actions that require senior leader involvement to achieve requisite levels of capability on schedule. Yellow triangles are dependent actions that need attention but not necessarily direct senior leader involvement. As depicted  in the highlighted text, the  linked actions to procure, train and organize are expected to reduce the operator manning for transit up to 40%.  This may also provide some surge capacity for specific benign missions.

The  portfolio  of  critical  actions  necessitates  a  certain  level  of  cultural  change  within the  USAF  through UAS  leadership institutionalization.    These actions  can  and should be  accomplished relatively  quickly.  Additionally they wil  have a direct impact on UAS support to Combatant Commanders and as such, they are the core of the immediate actions described in Annex 5.

4.6.1.1   Near-Term Simultaneous Actions
The number of the DOTMLPF-P steps need to begin simultaneously to see results in the near term.  Most of these immediate actions are described in Annex 5.  There are several that are underway that just need sufficient attention to complete in sequence. There is an ongoing discussion on how to manage multi-role platforms.  In the past, intelligence and combat operations platforms were tasked through two separate prioritization processes.  Multi-role UAS operate in the seam between these two processes so there is a certain level  of  friction  between the  competing priorities.   Equitable doctrinal  solutions  need to be developed to reduce this  friction  and maximize the  utility  of  these UAS. This  step  also  identifies  two perpetual  DOTMLPF-P  activities.   First there  needs  to be  a concerted  coordinated public  affairs communications strategy  to highlight the USAF UAS accomplishments and emerging positions  on UAS issues.  Secondly, facilities that support the equipment and operations need to be built as new units and missions stand up.
   
4.6.1.2 Additional Near-Term Actions: Communications Network Issues 
Assured communication  between the  unmanned aircraft and  control  station(s)  for both C2 and  the collection  payload  is  an important  step  toward  full  autonomy.   There must be  a  migration  from  today’s dependency  on  a SATCOM  control  model  to a tiered  network  system  capable of  supporting today’s operations  while providing  a bridge  to the  UAS  vision.   The  Advanced Tactical  Data  Link  (ATDL)  is  a component of a network system that can support this bridge to the future.  The ATDL is an open systems network  transport component of  the DoD  tactical  network  system  of  systems, comprised  of  a family  of waveforms  optimized  to support information  movement between  airborne, ground-based  and maritime assets  in the  contested, permissive and anti-access  battlespace. The  DoD  tactical  network  system  of systems  is  part of the  GIG  that supports  tactical  military  operations.

It includes, but is  not limited  to, human interfaces, software applications and interfaces, network transport, network services, information services and the hardware and hardware interfaces necessary to form a complete system that delivers tactical  mission  outcomes.    The  tactical  network  system  operates  as  independent small  combat sub-networks opportunistically connected to each other and to the GIG.  The overarching requirement for the DoD  tactical  network  system  of  systems  is  to provide  the  right  information,  at the  right time, properly disseminated  and displayed, so  warfighters  can  deliver tactical  mission  outcomes.   Information superiority, delivered by the DoD tactical network system of systems and enabled by the ATDL, integrates platforms, sensors, C2 and weapons  in performance of  their  assigned  missions  to improve mission outcomes  and enables  improved decision-making.

Integration enabled  by  ATDL will  extend to any platform, for example 4th  and 5th  generation  fighters, maritime  assets, C2 systems,  weapons, UAS/UCAVs in ways appropriate for the mission and fiscally prudent.  Developed jointly, ATDL will enable the joint community to implement an interoperable, timely and affordable DoD-wide approach. 

Communications  planners  need  to consider: available bandwidth, datalink  upgrades, range  between source and receiver, required network  infrastructure, detectability, and security  in a contested environment.  These issues are of particular concern for the ISR mission when communication is desired without exposing either  the sender  or receiver to possible hostile interception. Bandwidth  requirements become more demanding  for stealthy  operations  such as  cooperative engagements  that require low-probability-of-intercept or  detections  (LPI/LPD)  radio frequency  (RF)  communications.    Line-of-sight datalinks  with LPI/LPD properties  are a necessary  technology  enabler for future flights  of  stealthy  UAS because we must have datalinks that are survivable and impervious  to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or other denial efforts. Under the USAF’s traditional RSO model, UAS wil  require significant bandwidth for the  foreseeable future to assure communications  of  BLOS  transmission  of  both C2 and payload  data.  The concern for assured bandwidth has the attention of Congress.  The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2009 requires that DoD provide a detailed report on bandwidth requirements, availability, cost, and mitigation technologies being employed across the Department. 

While there will be a substantial growth in available Military Satel ite Communications (MILSATCOM) over the next 20 years, the lack of synchronization between the on-orbit space segment, and fielding of UASs without the terminals  required  to make use of that capability  will  drive us  to seek  commercial  and “surrogate satellite” alternatives: 

1.  Commercial SATCOM:  While today’s UAS almost exclusively use commercial SATCOM, it has some major drawbacks.  First and foremost, commercial SATCOM is an open commodity where the DoD competes  with numerous  other communications  users  (i.e.  TV, international  telephone, data, and facsimile).   Also, commercial  SATCOM transponders  are sized  for the community  they  intend  to support which ranges typically from 36-54 MHz. While that transponder size is sufficient for Predator / Reaper it is  less  than  adequate to support Global  Hawk’s  Block  20/30/40  full  throughput needs.
Final y, while figures  vary  with each lease, commercial  SATCOM bandwidth  typically  costs
approximately  $40K  per  MHz  per  year.   If  all  50  Predator/Reaper  caps  remained on commercial
•   43 -
 
SATCOM, the annual recurring cost would be approximately $25M assuming an individual cap data rate growth to 12.8 Mbps. 
 
2.   “Surrogate Satel ite” systems: High  altitude  lighter-than-air  systems  can  function  as  surrogate satellites relaying information between ground, other airborne sources, and satellites. Using standard network data link protocols, to include a network version of the common data link (CDL), Link 16, and its successor, UASs will be able to relay voice, video, and data using a network that includes Lighter-than-Air  Systems. Ultimately  this  would reduce the amount of  dedicated SATCOM (including  costly commercial  SATCOM) required for UAS  operation. Therefore the  USAF  should research and demonstrate  potential  applications  of  unmanned lighter-than-air  platforms  to support  a variety  of missions to include communications relay in a permissive environment.  The  reality  is  that while we can  continually  improve the  capability  of  systems  providing  communication from  one point to another,  there  is  never a  100 percent guarantee it will  reach  the  other end.   From  a terrestrial  standpoint, we  have  al   witnessed  when  the  “network’s  down”  even  the most robust architectures are subject to some level of degradation at one time or another either due to malfunction or malicious  intent.

Given  the complex  nature  of  USAF  unmanned aircraft operations  using remote  split operations, it is  critical  that communications  be  as  robust and assured as  possible.     Redundancy provides  invaluable help  to guarantee  communications  if  one path  is  degraded. Warfighters  need assured, near real-time access to SATCOM resources to exercise positive command and control, and to disseminate intel igence information  during  al   operational  phases  for the  duration  of  the  mission. This requires  synchronizing each segment of  the  SATCOM system.   If  communications  satellites  with  life spans  of  roughly  15  years  are launched but the  terminals  are delayed,  the intended  capability  will  be delayed; in essence, reducing the satellites’ effectiveness.  It is critical that we pursue smart, rapid fielding of terminals needed to make use of the mission essential assured communications satel ites being fielded over the next 20+ years. 

4.6.1.2.1   Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)
MOUS  is  an  array  of  geosynchronous  satel ites  being  developed  by  the  DoD  to provide global narrowband  (typical y  64 Kbps  and below)  SATCOM for assured C2 communications  for the  United States and allies. MUOS is intended primarily for mobile users (e.g. aerial and maritime platforms, ground vehicles, and dismounted soldiers) and wil  extend users’ voice, video, and data communications beyond their  lines-of-sight; MUOS  will  provide  global  coverage and dense foliage penetration  through  ultrahigh frequency (UHF) transmissions sending the right data to the right person at the right time.   

4.6.1.2.2   Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS)
WGS wil  be the primary wideband MILSATCOM solution to support UAS for the next 20+ years.  Based
on  recent  senior leader decisions,  the  WGS  constellation  was  changed  from  a 6 to an  8-satellite
geosynchronous  constellation.  The  first three  (SVs  1-3) Block  1 WGS  will  provide  approximately  137 Mbps  maximum  throughput per user and  the  second three  (SVs  406) Block  2 WGS  wil   provide approximately 274 Mbps maximum throughput for up to two users per satellite.  For Predator and Reaper, WGS Ka-band compatible terminals will start fielding 2nd quarter Fiscal Year 2011.  By 4th quarter Fiscal Year  2013  there should be 5.4  GHz  of  Ka-band capacity  global y  available for  Predator, Reaper, and Global Hawk, along with other Ka-compatible platforms (air and ground) competing for bandwidth.  At that time frame we will  have roughly  30 percent of  our  Predator and Reaper airborne terminals  capable of using WGS  but there  wil   be  no Global  Hawk  Ka-band capable platforms.   The  first Ka-band BLOS capable Global  Hawks  will  not be  fielded until  2016-2017; until  then  Global  Hawk  will  have to  rely  on commercial Ku-band SATCOM.
 
Once the  WGS  8-ball  constellation  is  fully  fielded and  operational  (est. 4th  Quarter FY16), the  USAF anticipates having 40 percent of our Predator/Reaper fleet operational with Ka-band compatible terminals.  Based on the potential number of caps (81) planned for in FY16 and using the maximum surge data rate, the  total  bandwidth  required  would be  1.296 GHz.   Fifty-  three percent of  those caps  (43)  would stilL  require commercial Ku-band SATCOM for a total commercial Ku-band requirement of 688 MHz  Based on the $40K cost per MHz, that will result in an annual commercial SATCOM lease cost of $27.5M (without inflation) based on a per cap requirement of 16 Mbps.         
With the development of various UAS platforms, demand for the use of WGS (Ka-band and X-band) will increase.

The type of mission will likely dictate the type of SATCOM and associated terminal required.  UAS  with deep, stealthy  strike missions  will  likely  require protected communication  (through  Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF), while AWACS/JSTARS-like UAS replacement platforms may require both  AEHF  and  assured  (MUOS,  WGS)  narrowband/wideband  communications.  This  will require significant synchronization and the further development of software programmable terminals. The USAF will assess the consolidation of a UAS Systems Wing to better manage all aspects of UAS operations to include commonality of system components and synchronization with space and terminal segments. 

4.6.1.2.3   Spectrum Management
Available radio frequency  spectrum, just like fuel  or power, is  an  essential  enabler for UAS  operations.  Hence, planning is an essential function needed to help deconflict operations. Close coordination with the Combined Forces  Commander frequency  manager is  critical  to safety  and mission  success. Operators should be  aware of  the  frequency  characteristics  of  UAS, the  bandwidth requirements  for sensor products, communication relay throughput, platform emission patterns and characteristics for all links, as they relate to the electromagnetic environment where they plan to operate. Knowledge  of these factors will enable the operator to clearly articulate radio frequency requirements to the frequency manager for frequency allocation and deconfliction.
 
UAS operators who use LOS links for control of UAS and receipt of sensor products also must coordinate with the appropriate spectrum manager to deconflict from other users. Planners must consider emitters in the local areas of both the GCS and aircraft to avoid mutual interference with other systems. For BLOS operations, regulatory requirements, potential interference, and availability of military and/or commercial satellite access  should be  considered. Operators  must have a solid understanding  of  the  spectrum environment and bandwidth limitations to maximize effective use of all assets.

4.6.1.2.4   Protected Communications
In many instances protection of critical communication paths and the security of the information flowing through them is vital to national security interests.  Satellite systems can encounter a number of threats to include: jamming, interference, direction  finding, interception, intrusion, physical  attack, as  well  as ionospheric scintillation and other effects (e.g. the affects of nuclear detonation).   In the future, C2, and to a lesser extent wideband  payloads  will  be  available  via “Protected”  Communications  using the  AEHF constellation.  Based on the electromagnetic spectrum they operate in and the capabilities built into the satellite   the  terminals  and antennas  employed, they  can provide global, highly  secure, protected, survivable communications for Joint forces.  Additionally, platforms, such as Reaper and other evolving UAS  will  be able to take advantage of  protected  communications  and  potentially  with a much higher throughput when  technologies  are fielded such as  the  EHF  extended data rate (XDR)  and XDR Plus (XDR+). USAF  will  support development of  non-proprietary  UAS  terminals  to  take full  advantage of emerging on-orbit military communications satellites, and reduce reliance on commercial satellites to the maximum extent possible. 

4.6.1.2.5   Bandwidth Management 
Many  of  the  current unmanned  systems  use commercial-off-the-shelf  (COTS)  data link equipment that offers  the  developers  reduced  costs  and  shorter  development periods.   One  of  the  major problems associated with using commercial RF for military applications is that the frequencies used to receive in the commercial  Ku-band  are identified  as  fixed  satellite service (FSS)  and not primarily  intended for air-to-ground aeronautical application; hence, we have either a low, non interference priority  within the United States  or we may  be prohibited  from  use altogether in other  countries. To mitigate this, new  systems need  to  plan  ahead for  comprehensive spectrum  supportability  of  their  primary  and  alternate datalink communication  solutions.  Further,  UAS  systems  of  the  future should incorporate  the latest efforts  in bandwidth efficiency.  That includes following new efficient modem standards and initiatives in improved compression algorithms and modulation schemes (e.g. Phoenix Terminal which transmitted 440 Mbps of data through  a 125 MHz  transponder)  and  programs  such as  Wideband  SATCOM Operational Management System  (WSOMS)  designed  to adjust power levels, modulation, and coding to optimized WGS  bandwidth use.

The  USAF  should  support initiatives  in compression, modulation  schemes, and advancements  in modem  design that will  support capabilities  like “dial-a-rate,”  “dial-a-modulation,”  etc.  with the intent of optimizing bandwidth use.  Many  of  the  solutions  to assured communications  rely  on  the aircraft knowing  where it is  in space and time.   Currently  UAS  rely  extensively  on  Global  Positioning  Satellite (GPS)  position and  time synchronization.   The  relatively  weak  broadcast signal  from  space can  be  jammed, precluding  UAS operations.  Until onboard systems that do not rely on GPS can be fielded, assured position, navigation and timing is a critical UAS concern.   
Final y, as  a hedge  against the  ability  of  an  adversary  to deny  us  the  use  of  our  datalinks, we must continue to dovetail unmanned and manned capability so that lacking datalink assuredness or the political will to use autonomous strikes, the USAF wil  still have the ability to hold strategic targets at risk.  This must include  the  synchronization  of  the  development of  both  manned and  unmanned asset  and  the modular UAs that may have an optionally-manned capability.

4.6.2   Mid-Term  DOTMLPF-P Actions

Figure 8:  Mid Term – Accelerate Innovation
The current acquisition system is focused on individual programs meeting specific performance measures of cost, schedule, and capability.  Program managers are held accountable to a certain extent. However, there is often a lack of incentive to go beyond requirements. The level of innovation is typically capped at the  level  of  technology  development of  the least capable component  of  the  complete  system.  Further, revolutionary concepts are difficult to translate into materiel solutions but iteratively mature as separate aspects and technologies related to the concept are achieved.  The best way to spur on this process is to structure the acquisition to reward rapid innovation. In this way, each aspect of the desired end state wil  be integrated and improved as quickly as possible even if it isn’t the intended final end state.  Autonomy for a system-of-systems is a revolutionary concept that can be advanced through rapid innovation.  This aspect of the mid-term actions is broken out separately since all follow-on actions hinge on this. 
•   46 -
 
Current acquisition  of  proprietary  systems  further delays  the  innovation required  for autonomy.   The manufacturer  may  not be  able to easily  make changes  to the  operating system  required  to advance autonomy  while meeting  program  performance requirements. The  initial  programmatic  method  to advance innovation is to facilitate competition on system components by defining standards. Through the definition of  standard interfaces  and modular systems  designed  for innovation, autonomy  can  be incrementally integrated and refined throughout the process.
Appropriate acquisition  policy  for disruptive technologies  such as  UAS  has  been a challenge  for DoD. 

From inception as ACTD, UAS development, procurement, and fielding have followed a unique process.  This has continued as most systems were funded before needs were defined, especially small systems demonstrated and immediately purchased to support Joint Forces.  The fallout of this process is the lack of  institutional  buy-in  and  common  programming  goals  within DoD.    OSD Acquisition, Technology,  and Logistics (AT&L) staff have been directed to take a more directive role in managing what would normally be  a  Service Title 10 process.   Recent policy  decisions  including Acquisition  Decision Memorandums (ADMs)  and Program  Decision  Memorandums  (PDMs)  focus  on  requirements  driven acquisition strategies.    This  is  all  being  normalized  through  the  Aeronautical  Systems  Wing  (AESW)  structure  as described in Annex 6.

There  are other interdependencies  across  the DOTMLPF-P  spectrum  that are critical  to  pursue simultaneously to guide USAF UAS development, acquisition, and fielding.  Doctrine defining how multi-role UAS  are allocated  to support the CCDR is  critical  to determine  prioritization of  capability development.  Without a clear  definition  of  requirement,  the need  for more of  the  capabilities  UAS  can provide  cannot be  curbed,  thus  trapping  the  USAF  into  a reactive, rather  than  the  deliberate Planning, Programming, Budgeting  and Execution cycle (PPBE). The  USAF  UAS  community  also requires dedicated leadership to articulate how the policy wil  be implemented and to set the priorities for the UAS AESW.   

The UAS leadership and AESW need materiel and personnel solutions to achieve the innovation enabled by  the doctrine, organization, leadership and  policy  streamlining.    Three critical  elements  will  form  the nexus of this innovation.   Standard interfaces between the vehicle and control  station and between the vehicle and payload will free industry to develop the next generation systems and components needed to support the  CCDR  as  wel   as  other government departments  and agencies.    Just as  open architecture software exponential y  advanced  computer applications, UAS  system  interface standards  wil   improve current UAS  innovation.    Immediate  actions  related  to standard interfaces  and  modular payloads  are described  in  more detail  in  Annex  Five.    One  of  the  highest impact areas  for innovation  is  automation. This  will  require advance research guided by  Joint operational  imperatives  which can  best be accomplished by USAF UAS personnel teaming with research schools.
•   47 -
 
4.6.3   Long Term

Figure 9: Long Term – Fully Integrate UAS 
The third portfolio step on the path toward autonomous capability links dependent DOTMLPF-P actions in order to fully integrate UAS with al  other assets worldwide.  These entail full integration with all airborne traffic  in the  National  Airspace System  and International  Civil  Airspace through  technology, procedural, training, and policy changes. UAS will fly formations with manned and unmanned aircraft as required by the  operation. The  USAF  will  provide graduate level  UAS  support  to Joint Warfighter through organizational  changes. These changes  wil   establish optimum  networked  RSO  basing, software  that performs automatic PAD to move from collecting information to knowledge, and career tracks that reward the top performers throughout al  appropriate enlisted and officer AFSC.

4.6.3.1   NAS Integration
A  chal enge to fully  integrate UAS  is  NAS  access.   Over the years  as  manned aircraft operations
increased, rules were developed to increase the safety of flight.  The most basic method of deconfliction is to see and avoid other aircraft (14 CFR 91.113).  This is assumed as the most basic universal means when  al   other  procedures  and equipment have not prevented a conflict situation.   See  and avoid also holds the pilot as the one ultimately responsible in any visual environment.  This is a major consideration and therefore, this precedent that has served us wel  in the past, is not easily changed or replaced.  Integration efforts  will  go  beyond  airspace  access  to better integrate  collected  materials  into  the intel igence process. Current combat airspace procedures  for UAS  were developed for  uncontested airspace.  Our forces can dictate deconfliction procedures and create segregated airspace for operations at will.   This  cannot be  taken  for granted since host nations  in theater may  have restrictions  on  UAS operations  that reduce their  effectiveness.   They  could be limited  by  the  same type of  approval  and procedures  as  they  face  in the NAS  or under  current International  Civil  Aviation  Administration Organization (ICAO) rules.

The issue of clearance to launch UAS sorties when well outside the combat zone is related also.  The combat urgency of the CCDR wil  not necessarily be shared by the host nation outside the combat zone, resulting  in  approvals  for flight  not being  expedited.   UAS  support to combat may be thwarted by lack of airspace integration capability.  The sense and avoid technological solutions coupled with the DoD and FAA rulemaking can serve as a model for international airspace solutions.
•   48 - 

Part of the reason the FAA has delayed the development of rules and standards, is due to pressure from other NAS users.  The USAF does not seek to place restrictions on civil or general aviation users of the NAS, but rather wil   develop  policy, technologies  and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures  (TTPs)  to integrate UAS  operations  into  the NAS  in a way  that is  entirely  compatible with the  rest of  the  flying public.  A public affairs effort will be required to educate  aviation audiences on the USAF position. The USAF UAS TF will ensure coordination of this effort with AF/A2, AF/A3, and SAF/PA.

4.6.3.2   Long Term Technology Enablers
See and avoid has not been defined in terms of minimum detection distance, minimum field of view, or
minimum scanning rates/patterns.  There are many variables that affect this analysis including pilot skill, pilot flight currency, density of traffic, and flight speeds.  Further, the level of acceptable risk has not been defined.   Additionally,  there are also  no  development standards  for Sense and  Avoid.   Technological solutions are being matured in the labs, but have not been approved  yet because the standards do not exist and the  modeling  and simulation  to make the  safety  case is  just beginning.   Prototype  materiel solutions  are now  being  integrated  for demonstration  and test.   Over the  next several  years  this technology wil  mature, culminating in certified airborne sense and avoid systems and associated Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rulemaking to implement. 

The same technologies that keep UAS from any airborne collision wil  also enable UAS formation flight.  Coordinated missions and cooperative target engagement wil  provide  the same mission efficiencies as manned aircraft.  Total bandwidth may be reduced since only one unmanned aircraft within the formation will need the link for some phases of flight.

The  actions  to gain unfettered airspace access  and  fly  in formation  will  greatly  expand the  level  of information collected.  Today, most full motion video as wel  as imagery is used real-time but then “falls on the  floor”  and is  not optimally  analyzed to extract  more  knowledge  of  the  enemy.    Automated tasking, processing, analysis and dissemination (TPAD) wil  optimize tasking of multiple assets to best meet real-time collection needs while providing a means to analyze a greater portion of the data/imagery col ected.  Further, analysts will be able to synthesize more information into collective knowledge. 

4.6.3.3   Career Pyramid Development
Most personnel  performing  operations, intelligence, and  link  support are assigned  to UAS  for only  one tour. Though these personnel have performed well, the experience is capped at three years. The culture and experience can continue to mature if there is a planned career pathway or pyramid. This growth is essential to support the CCDR at the graduate level. Other Services and potentially coalition partners, will  eclipse USAF operational support pertaining to experience if UAS assigned personnel are not retained for a career.   The  success  of  the  operation  is  dependent on having  aircraft, control  stations, and the associated links functioning at peak performance. Training and personnel management of these ground crews and technicians will  advance and reshape career fields.  Further, the UAS is only  effective if the pilots and mission managers have critical real-time information and can integrate what they collect and do into  the  Global  Information  Grid (GIG).   This  requires  careful  consideration  when  developing  training appropriate to UAS operators and support personnel. 

Aircraft and communications  UAS  maintenance career field management wil   transform  as  well.   First, dependence on  organization-level  contract maintenance wil   be  reduced  as  current systems  mature.  Unique  design  and  supportability  attributes  of  existing  and  future UAS  and  a  growing  maintenance experience base wil   enable a transition to a more generalized organizational-level  mechanical  and technical (mech/tech) AFSC structure. This evolution in maintenance specialty structure will further meld with the overarching future strategy for the maintenance career fields as part of Training Enterprise (TE) 2010 initiatives.  The vision of a UAS mech/tech AFSC construct for organizational-level maintenance will be similar to that currently being utilized on F-22 bases.
•   49 -
 
4.6.4   Long Term (FY25-47) Path Toward Ful  Autonomy

Figure 10: Long Term – Full Autonomy
The final portfolio step leverages a fully autonomous capability, swarming, and Hypersonic technology to put the enemy  off  balance by  being  able to almost instantaneously  create  effects  throughout the battlespace.  Technologies  to perform  auto air  refueling, automated maintenance, automatic  target engagement, hypersonic  flight, and  swarming  would drive changes  across  the  DOTMLPF-P  spectrum.  The end result would be a revolution in the roles of humans in air warfare. 

4.6.4.1   Long Term (FY25-47) Technology Enablers
Assuming  legal  and policy  decisions  allow,  technological  advances  in artificial  intelligence  wil   enable UAS  to make and execute  complex  decisions  required  in this  phase of  autonomy. Today  target  recognition technology usually relies on matching specific sensor information with predictive templates of the intended target.  As the number of types of targets and environmental factors increase the complexity of and time to complete targeting increases.  Further, many targeting algorithms are focused on military equipment. Our enemies  today  and those we face in the  future will  find  ways  to counter  our systems.  Autonomous targeting systems must be capable of learning and exercising a spectrum of missions useful to the  Joint Warfighter.   However, humans  will  retain the ability  to change  the  level  of  autonomy  as appropriate for the type or phase of mission. 

4.6.4.2   Force Structure Reform
Personnel costs will shift from operations, maintenance, and training to design and development. Today flight control  software has  demonstrated the  first stages  of  self healing  by  isolating  malfunctions  during self test and at times, compensating for loss  of aircraft wing or tail surfaces. Also today, stealth surface repair  is  accomplished  by  machines, not manual  labor. As  technology  advances, machines  will automatically  perform  some repairs  in flight and  routine  ground  maintenance wil   be conducted  by machines without human touch labor.  Fewer operators will be “flying” the sorties but directing swarms of aircraft.  There wil  be cascading DOTMLPF-P implications on facilities, organization, training, and force structure. Skil s to prepare, launch, and perform combat air operations wil  no longer be required only on the flight line but in the technology development offices as wel .  New tactics can be either programmed in at any time from Distributed Network Support locations, or the system wil   learn from the experience of others in the swarm.  Through these advances, systems and equipment can deploy forward with little if any human presence unless required for acceptance.

A key challenge to realizing the vision will be to develop and maintain the right skil  sets of systems and operational software developers, mission directors, and future USAF leaders. Design teams must plan for the  flexibility  to change tactics  and levels  of  response to situations.   The  team  members  need  to be selected for basic skil s and then further trained to build systems that can fight the battles at all levels of conflict in al   environments. Relatively  few mission  directors  wil   be  needed so issues  of  career advancement and selection criteria wil  be challenges for future leaders. These leaders wil  also require different skil s to employ air power that is largely non-human. In the future, the warrior will have incredible combat power and responsibility with a smaller logistics footprint.

•   51 -

[Anti_Illuminati]

ANNEX 5- IMMEDIATE ACTION PLAN
5.1   DOTMLPF-P Immediate Actions
 
The following are issues requiring immediate attention in order to successfully implement the UAS Flight Plan.   These issues  have  been examined  and solutions  have been  proposed using  the  DOTMLPF-P construct.   For each issue  an  OPR and Offices  of  Coordinating  Responsibilities  (OCRs)  are proposed.  Additionally, the materiel initiatives are competing for immediate funding to accelerate development and demonstration.  AF/A2 will present updates on these issues through the corporate process.  Actions and decisions required of SECAF/CSAF wil  be presented on a quarterly basis.

5.1.1   Doctrine:
Objective: Assess options for UAS units to support multiple CCDRs if needed by 4QFY10.
OPR: LeMay Doctrine Center; OCR: ACC and AFSOC
UAS  reach-back  operations  coupled  with long  endurance  platforms  have  the  potential  to blur apportionment directives.   For example, the  current  Expeditionary  Wing  Commanders  are tasked  to support more than one theater with the same crews and control stations.  This can extend to a single unit supporting  multiple AORs.   However this  ability  also challenges  existing  doctrine  that normally  only assigns a given unit to a single CCDR.  When portions of a given service unit (squadron, group, wing) are supporting  multiple AORs  (e.g. The  347th  expeditionary  wing), it  is  essential  to  determine  who  or what organization allocates a given capability on a minute by minute basis.   Solutions to this issue will require doctrinal and organizational changes to include possibly establishing a level  of  command with authorities  to real ocate  forces  by  the  4QFY09.   This  issue  is  similar to the allocation  of  strategic  airlift through the 618 Tanker  Airlift Control  Center  (TACC).

Joint Functional Component Commanders (JFCC) for ISR (STRATCOM JFCC ISR) and Transportation (TRANSCOM) wil  address the UAS that primarily support those respective functions; however multi-role long range systems do not currently have an overarching functional COCOM. This is further exacerbated because today two separate tasking  organizations  require UAS  assets  and three when UAS  take on  a significant cargo transportation role. Multi-role UAS  need to support JFCC ISR tasks  as  well  as  air  tasking  order  (ATO) force applications missions.  This chal enge will increase since the MQ-9 has been designated to backfill missions  currently  met by  250 older fighter aircraft slated for early  retirement.   These competing  tasks must also be balanced by the command authorities under this initiative.

Nontransferable command authority  established by  Title 10  (“Armed  Forces”),  United  States  Code, section  164, is  exercised  only  by  commanders  of unified  or specified  combatant commands  unless otherwise directed by the President or SECDEF.  Combatant command (command authority) cannot be delegated and is the authority of a combatant commander to perform those functions of command over assigned forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving  authoritative direction  over all  aspects  of  military  operations, Joint training, and logistics necessary to accomplish the missions assigned to the command.

Combatant command should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations.  Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate Joint Force Commanders  and  Service and/or functional  component commanders.  Combatant command provides  full  authority  to organize and employ  commands  and forces  as  the combatant commander  considers  necessary  to accomplish assigned  missions.   Operational  control (OPCON) is inherent in combatant command.
 
CCDR  APPORTIONMENT  OF  GLOBALLY  CAPABLE  SYSTEMS:      A  single unit cannot  be simultaneously  assigned with specified OPCON or Tactical  Control  (TACON)  to multiple CCDRs.   Any transfer of forces between CCDRs requires Presidential or SECDEF approval.  However, a single unit can be used in support of multiple CCDRs, but there are two major drawbacks: 
1.   CCDRs need the certainty of the UAS capability via their exercise of OPCON and TACON.  Partial or temporary “ownership” of a capability that may be pulled back by a higher HQ makes it nearly impossible to effectively plan or execute in a fluid operational environment.   


•   53 -
 
 
2.   Legal command authority and responsibility issues could arise if portions of an operational mission fail and an investigation traces the cause back to the source of the tasking and orders. This scenario may be putting the “lending or owning” CCDR in the position of being responsible for an operational mission that they were not actual y executing operational authority over.   

TWO POTENTIAL COA’S THAT COULD BE PURSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY: 
1.   Long term “permanent” solution: Title 10 USC, and the resulting Unified Command Plan (UCP), must be  reviewed in light of  modern capabilities.   A  single Joint Command, at the National  level, could  be empowered to oversee  and prioritize global  operations  for those assets  capable of  participating  in a “global joint force.”  That command would have the ability to coalesce and allocate any available assets (UAS, space, airlift, global  strike, cyber, et al). In this paradigm, the term “available” takes on  a unique meaning.  Other than staff support, no forces would be assigned to that Senior Command, however the Command would have SECDEF-like authority  to rapidly  swing forces  (capabilities)  from  one CCDR  to another.   Those forces  would be under  the OPCON and TACON of  the  gaining CCDR  for a specified duration.   

2.   Short term  “current”  solution:   While doctrine recommends  that forces  should be  attached to (and under  the  OPCON of)  the commander  charged with the responsibility  for mission  execution  (e.g., CDRUSCENTCOM), it also allows for deviation based on changes in the operational environment.  The current OCO  presents  a relatively  unique  operational  environment that crosses  many  CCDRs  AORs.  With a carefully constructed Direct Support agreement between CCDRs, the SECDEF could – in the case of  Predator/Reaper operations    –  designate a functional  CCDR as  a supporting  commander  and CDRUSCENTCOM (or any CCDR) as a supported commander for all missions.  The functional CCDR, through COMACC, then places UAS units in direct support to CDRUSCENTCOM through CENTAF/CC.  A properly written directive needs to be created, establishing authorization for the commander of the UAS units to respond directly to the operational mission requirements and tasking of AETF/CC.   

5.1.2   Organization
Objective: Focus ASC on al  components of al  types of UAS including SUAS and HAA for more effective development and acquisition by 4QFY09 (test-bed for Life Cycle Management Excellence)
OPR: AFMC; OCR:  SAF/AQ, HAF A1, and HAF A2 UAS TF

Currently  UAS  Acquisition  is  stove-piped  by  weapon  systems. There are a number  of  issues  that are common  to medium  and large size UASs  that would benefit from  common  coordinated  approaches.  Some of these issues include datalinks, sense and avoid systems, and standard interfaces.  ASC  wil   focus  on  full  institutional  integration  of  all  UAS  in  the  USAF.   This  includes  aircraft, modular payloads, communications  infrastructure, and  ground  stations.   The  goal  is  to foster appropriate  Joint UAS  Acquisition with  emphasis  on innovation, rapid acquisition and  fielding. Ideally,  the USAF  will  be recognized as  a UAS  acquisition Center of  Excellence, delivering  Joint UAS  Capabilities  with best practices that can be exported across DoD.
Objective: Stand up two SUAS squadrons by FY10.
OPR: AFSOC OCR: HAF A1, HAF A2 UAS TF, ACC, and AFOSI

The  new  squadrons  will  ensure that al   USAF  SUAS  operations  are consistent with other USAF  flight operations.  These squadrons wil  provide direct support to key Battlefield Airmen units and their unique deployments.  The first step toward establishing these squadrons will be an analysis of the SUAS mission requirements supporting AFSOC, Force Protection, AFOSI, and COCOM ground component forces. The analysis will leverage the expertise of Airmen related to flight operations, maintenance, logistics, training, career field management, and network C2.  Organizational options will be developed to support CONEMP for the  requisite missions. These options  may  include forward deployed  flights  and permanent detachments.   This  organization  will  be scalable to support  specific  AFSOC  Force Protection, and  OSI SUAS missions as wel  as theater missions directed by the AOC.

•   54 -


5.1.3   Training: 
 
 
Objective: Demonstrate high-fidelity simulator (100% IQT) by 4QFY10
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, SAF XC, HAF A2 UAS TF & A3/5, and ACC 
Developing  a high-fidelity  simulator  capable of  meeting  100% IQT  is  the  intent  of  this  objective. The explosive growth in UAS  creates  the  need  to dramatically  increase training  capacity, quality, and efficiency in UAS systems and capabilities.  In April of  2008, SECDEF directed the services to “Look at training  in a different way  than we have in the past”.    His  comment was  driven  by  the  inability  of  the services to meet the required surge in UAS operations as a result of shortfalls in training production.   A key contributor to this training shortfall is the current generation of simulator’s lack of a realistic training environment. 

Support the programmed  fleet of  assets  provides  to COCOMs  can  be  maximized with high-fidelity simulators  developed to meet ACC specific  requirements.   Due to training  requirements, manned platforms typically deploy only a third of their assets to combat.  The higher the fidelity of the simulation, the less there is a need for live flight.  Potential y training throughput would be doubled by not being tied to range, weather and  other aircraft sortie limitations  and more resources  can  be  devoted  to combat.  Once initial training is complete, UAS crews could maintain continuation currencies and mission skil  sets without generating  home station  sorties. This  added  flying  training can  be  accomplished without risk  of aircraft mishap.  Some home station sorties wil  be generated to meet required maintenance training and readiness. 

Training  and materiel  solutions  for  this  issue  include  three levels  of  modification  of  existing UAS simulators. These modifications  are high-fidelity  realistic  presentations  of  sensor operations  and UAS systems components with LVT and Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) capability.  The first priority is a high-fidelity database supporting realistic sensor displays.  These imagery simulation enhancements wil  be leveraged into the RQ-4 simulator as wel .   This database is critical not only for SO training, but also for other aircraft pod simulations.  Both the Navy and Army are potential Joint partners for the database development. The  second  level  of  modification  will  include a mission  coordinator station, low-light simulation, Joint Tactical Air Controller (JTAC) simulation integration, improved flight characteristics and improved emergency procedures simulation.  These improvements enable MQ-1 and MQ-9 simulators to perform all IQT training  with the  exception  of missions  that require participation  with other aircraft.   The third level of modification wil  link the simulator with DMO and LVT systems.   

Until these systems are developed, not only do aircrews require sorties to train with JTACs and manned
aircraft during IQT, but JTACs, manned aircraft crews and maintainers will require UAS sorties to meet
their  training requirements.    Redirecting  FY09 RDT&E  funding supports  the  development and
implementation  of  standards  for all  future UAS  simulators.    If  funded,  the  goal  is  100% of  IQT  to be accomplished in simulators as soon as possible.   

5.1.4 Materiel and Personnel: 
Objective:  Implement improved MAC in MQ-1/MQ-9 GCS 4QFY10
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ/XC, SAF/XC, HAF A2 UAS TF, HAF A3/5, and ACC
Current operations restrict a single operator to control ing a single aircraft with limited ability  to operate different UAS types from a ground control station.   Several hours per day per UAS may be required for transit between launch and recovery locations and the mission area.  Additional y, excess resources are used when two UAS are required to maintain one continuous orbit.  Major portions of collection missions can  be  managed through  existing levels  of  automation technology.   This  technology  coupled  with improved  HSI controls  and  displays,  wil   al ow a single pilot  and four  SOs  to control  up  to four  aircraft simultaneously for benign operations.  This effort upgrades existing MQ-1 and MQ-9 MAC GCS with new software, enhanced interfaces and incorporates lessons learned from thousands of combat hours flown in MAC.   If  funded the  initiative wil   “MAC-up”  the  last 7-10  GCS  off  of  the  MQ-1/MQ-9  production line.

Technologies advanced through MQ-1 and MQ-9 MAC lessons learned could be implemented on other systems to provide similar efficiencies.  The qualification training wil   also need to be adjusted for MAC- enabled operations. 
Objective: Demonstrate air-launched SUAS enhanced MAC technology 4QFY10.
OPR: AFMC, AFSOC, OCR: SAF/AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF, HAF A3/5, and ACC

Air-launched  off-board sensing  is  required for some missions  particularly  when  there  is  a need  to see below  cloud  decks.  These aircraft could be controlled from  the  parent aircraft or handed off  to other aircraft or surface teams to maintain chain of custody for high value targets. This concept will be integral to next generation gunship and next generation UAS CONEMPS.  Additional y, security forces team could more efficiently  monitor an entire  base  perimeter  with ground  launched  MAC  system  as  opposed to multiple SUAS operators attempting to achieve the same effect.  One pilot could direct the aircraft without the  need  to continuously  coordinate  with several  other operators  to avoid gaps  in coverage while deconflicting  flight paths  of  all  the  aircraft.   Enhanced  SUAS  MAC is  expected  to significantly  increase number of aircraft controlled simultaneously since the simpler flight profiles and missions lend themselves to increased automation.
 
For this demonstration the MAC concept is applied to multiple air-launched SUAS.  Spectre Finder UAS
will be controlled and managed as an extension of the MQ-1 and MQ-9 systems.  These tube-launched
expendable SUAS  will  also have modular payloads.    This will  demonstrate UAS MAC-like teaming  and enhance “thru-the-weather  ISR”.    If  funded,  the  demonstration  would  be  the  first in a series  to develop CONEMPS  for manned-unmanned defensive counter  air, SEAD  and special  operations  missions.   The Navy is a potential partner for this demonstration.

Objective: Demonstrate with simulation an interoperable, standards-based, open architecture unmanned C2 segment to enhance inter-Service interoperability by 3QFY10 OPR: AFMC OCR: SAF/AQ, SAF/XC, HAF A2 UAS TF & A3/5, ACC and AFSOC 

Standards  and  interoperability  are keys  to the  Joint forces  gaining  Information  Superiority  in today’s network  enabled  environment. The  Joint and Service communications  system  must possess  the interoperability  necessary  to ensure success  in  joint and multinational  operations  as  wel   as  with other government and  non-government agencies.   Interoperability  can be achieved through:   commonality, compatibility, and  standardization.    Planners  must know  the capabilities  and  limitations  of  the  other components  communication system  resources  and  must be  able to integrate them  into  the  Joint Communications  system  plan.     As  new  UAS  systems  are developed,  it  is  essential  they  are  designed with open-system  architecture components  (i.e.  air  vehicle terminals, ground  terminals, terrestrial connections)  in mind; and  that future interoperability  is  not compromised  by  acceptance of  proprietary connectivity  components.   All  USAF  UAS  development and procurement initiatives  should comply  with recognized standard interfaces and with the Interoperability Key Performance Parameter (KPP) through
the JCIDS process.

Interoperability standards provide the common medium for unmanned systems interfaces by: 
1.     Reducing life cycle costs  –  the  cost to develop, integrate, and  support unmanned systems  is
reduced by eliminating custom “stovepipe” implementations

2.     Providing a framework for technology insertion – with a common interface, as new technologies are created, those technologies can be easily integrated with minor to no modification to existing systems

3.     Adapting to the expansion of existing systems with new capabilities – with the framework to support new technologies, the types of missions that current systems can perform increases
The U.S. Government has recognized the importance of standards within the DoD to support the rising
number  of  unmanned systems.   Interoperability  standards  are  now being written into  Public  Law,
specifically with regards to Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) such as STANAG 4586. Public Law
109-163 from Jan 6, 2006 states that: “those vehicles use data formats consistent with the architectural standard for tactical  unmanned aerial  vehicles  known as  STANAG  4586, developed to facilitate multinational  interoperability  among NATO  member  nations.”   

In addition  to  STANAG  4586, Military Standards such as MIL-STD 188-165A, INTEROPERABILITY OF SHF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PSK  MODEMS, are essential  standards  that must  be  complied  with during  the  development and procurement phases.  Bottom line:  Interoperability is the key to agile evolution.

Specific  developmental  actions  are required to support the Flight Plan  initiative on  Standard UAS interfaces. These actions  are targeted  to achieve improved mission  integration  and support the  AT&L initiative for interoperability and commonality. This demonstration expands UAS C2 capabilities for inter-service interoperability within families of systems as CONOPs/CONEMPs require.  It will determine any additional functionality that needs to be incorporated in future C2 architectures. Specifically the initiative is intended to develop and demonstrate  interoperable, standards-based, open  architecture command and control for UAS families of systems that may include  MQ-1, MQ-8, MQ-9, MQ-X, and RQ-4 through the application  of  the   Standard UAS  Interface   guide developed by  the  Army.

The  key  Joint UAS  C2 architecture and interface standards  to be developed are aircraft control  and  data sharing  standards, mission  integration  data  standards, distributed  aircraft and payload  operations  standards, and multi-aircraft control standards. In FY09 Joint Interoperability Profiles (JIOP) wil  be developed from CONOPS, CONEMPs and vision documents which in turn wil  be used to define Joint UAS C2 architectures. In FY10 Joint Interface Control  Documents  (JICD)  for each junction in the  joint architecture will  be  developed followed by a Joint working group using the Joint Concept Technology Demonstration (JCTD) approach to develop standards. 
 
Objective: Demonstrate Airborne Sense and Avoid (ABSAA) technology and CONOPS in 3QFY10
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF/AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF & A3/5, and ACC  UAS airspace integration is a top UAS priority of DoD.  The exponential increase in the number of UAS supporting  combat operations  creates  a demand for  airspace access  to conduct test and training.   A combination of policy and sense and avoid technology development and fielding is essential to meet this need.   Some technology  development has  been accomplished but delivering systems  and payloads
supporting  immediate  COCOM needs  had taken  precedence.   OSD AT&L has  chal enged Services  to
fund technology development required to meet the UAS programs’ airspace integration Key Performance Parameters  (KPPs).   SECAF  has  further refocused  efforts  through tasking  to the  HAF  to develop an executable plan for sense and avoid.  If funded, this initiative would demonstrate ABSAA for Reaper-class UAS  and  inform  ABSAA  solutions  across  the  family  of  UAS.    This  directly  supports  SECAF  and OSD tasking. 
 
Objective: Demonstrate High Altitude Airship UAS in FY09
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF, A3/5, and ACC

The  utility  of  high altitude long endurance capability  has  the  potential  to support many  mission  areas.  Near peer space and cyber competitors create the need for these capabilities.  Aerostats and specialty aircraft have the potential  to mitigate these risks.   Additionally,  capacity  limitations  of  the  current communications  and  datalink  architecture require deployable gateways  to connect all  combat forces  to the  worldwide information  system.   These high  altitude systems  can  provide  connectivity  where no capability or infrastructure exists today.  If funded, this high altitude airship demonstration would assess their utility for ISR, communications, and navigation (GPS) payloads.  At the completion of the demo the AF will make a decision on pursuing an operational HAA capability. As a follow-on, these platforms may provide  a means  to employ  new  sensors  to support Joint Operations  while the  technologies  are developing to miniaturize these payloads for integration on other UAS.  The Army and Navy have interest in this capability as well.

Objective: Demonstrate  technology  for MQ  medium  sized  (MQ-M)-like,”  modular payload  platform in FY10.
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF & A3/5, and ACC
The current DOD acquisition process emphasizes technology demonstrations.  This initiative supports this new OSD direction.  The intent of this effort is to identify high payoff system and mission attributes and CONEMPS, and demonstrate the critical enabling technologies to mature from the current generation of remotely piloted vehicles to an effective multi-mission Next Generation UAS.  More importantly the flight plan identified  modularity  as  a critical  capability  advancement of  these aircraft.   Modular payloads  will consider EA, CAS, strike and multi-INT ISR missions.  This modular technology demonstration will also be  used  to refine  the  human  system  interfaces  for the  advanced  ground control  station.   Technology integration  lessons  learned  from  this demonstration  will  be  used  to define modularity  standards  for the MQ-X/MQ-Ma and follow on USAF UAS  programs.  The design  wil   also advance the understanding  of interface standards for service-oriented architecture payload control.

Objective: Demonstrate MQ-9 ATLC by 4QFY10 and accelerate fielding
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF, HAF A3/5, and ACC 
As  with al   aircraft, most safety  incidents  and accidents  occur during  the takeoff  and landing  phases  of flight. Some efforts have been made to develop an ATLC for medium and large UAS.  There have been chal enges  aligning the  multiple program  dependencies  and concurrent engineering.   This  has  been exacerbated by the limited capacity of the current manufacturer to develop these technologies.  If funded, the flight plan initiative would accelerate ATLC by breaking it into three phases, a limited capability auto land followed by a full capability and redundancy, and lastly a Join Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS)  compliant capability.   FY09  investments  could  be made in the  technology  leading  to a touchdown demonstration  in FY10 and fielding of  the  limited  landing capability  in FY11.   Once proven, ATLC wil  be rigorously tested to comply with JPALS requirements.  This program wil  be accomplished in close coordination with the other Services’ ATLC efforts.

Objective: Protected Communications for MQ-1 and MQ-9 by FY14 
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, SAF XC, HAF A2 UAS TF, HAF A4/7, and ACC
Both the MQ-1 and MQ-9 use the proprietary datalinks that are unencrypted and as such susceptible to enemy exploitation. The Predator Primary Data Link (PPDL) used by both UAS requires higher data rates to support new sensors and OSD mandated secure Common Data Link (CDL). Congress added funding to accomplish this, but did not account for the retrofit of the existing fleet. 

If funded, the protected communications initiative would complete the separate development, integration, and test of the data link equipment for the MQ-1 and MQ-9 fleets. This will be accomplished in phases for each of these systems. VORTEX will be integrated in FY10. Simultaneously, the initiative will accelerate the ongoing data link improvements to meet NSA Type 1 secure BLOS & LOS data links commensurate with OSD and operator requirements.
Objective:  Demonstrate UAS EA Capability for MQ-9 by 4QFY10
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ, HAF A2 UAS TF, and ACC 

The retirement of the Navy’s EA-6B Prowler in 2012 will result in an EA capability gap for the USAF.   In order to fill this gap, consistent funding, Service sponsorship and RDT&E wil  be necessary.  One option to meet this gap is a MQ-9 equipped with EA capability.  This new capability would be demonstrated in two phases.    The  first phase in  FY10  would  determine  the  viability  of  EA  capability  onboard  a  MQ-9.  Specifical y the demo wil  identify and mitigate potential risks of co-interference between the UAS C2 links and the EA techniques employed to defeat enemy systems. The results  wil  be leveraged to develop a common architecture for next generation UAS EA. This architecture would define the key family of pods, systems, and links required for integrated  next generation stand-in and stand-off EA.  This architecture will  be modular,  scalable, reprogrammable, networked  and persistent.  The  second phase  wil  demonstrate  UAS  EA  on  spatial y  separated platforms  to enable unconstrained battlespace access  by denying enemy awareness of, or ability to track friendly air operations by 4Q12.  Integrated architecture will  be  demonstrated with  available hardware and software (e.g.  Miniature Air  Launch Decoy  –  Joint (MALD-J).
•   58 -

5.1.5   Leadership, Education and Personnel
Objective: Promote and assign leaders with UAS experience as soon as possible
OPR: HAF A1; OCR: HAF A3/5
UAS operations clearly present unique challenges.  However, due to the growth of UAS requirements and former policies of returning UAS qualified pilots back to manned aviation, there is a lack of UAS-expert leaders, decision-makers, and subject matter experts  in key  positions  within the HAF, Joint, and OSD staffs. This shortfall has resulted in decisions that frequently are fragmented, reflect legacy culture, and limit innovation. In addition, UAS experience is needed to lead and motivate a UAS career track within the USAF.

DoD-wide  interest in UAS  issues  demand highly  synchronized  USAF  activities  to successfully  and expediently support the Joint Force.  Implementation of the  USAF UAS Flight Plan needs an engine to bring it to an adequate level of institutional maturity.  The HAF UAS Task Force will coordinate the USAF efforts until such time as flight plan actions can be normalized. Leadership, Education  and Personnel  solutions  include identifying  and grooming  future UAS-expert senior leaders (within both the officer and enlisted ranks), assigning hand-picked UAS experts to the Air Staff by 3QFY09, and proliferating UAS experts throughout the Joint and OSD staff as resources allow.
Objective: Define UAS personnel career paths, training and sourcing by 2QFY10.
OPR: HAF A3/5; OCR: HAF A1, HAF A2 UAS TF, HAF A4/7, AFSOC, ACC, and AFRC

The  manpower chal enges  and solutions  described  in section  3.5  of  this  document require formal integration  in the  USAF  personnel  system.   Since UAS  are becoming  a greater  proportion  of  USAF operations, career  path development for all  associated  operations  and  logistics  personnel  needs  to account for this reality.   

5.1.6   Policy:
Objective: Propose National Airspace Integration Policy to OSD by 4QFY09
OPR: HAF A3/5; OCR: HAF A2 UAS TF, ACC, AFSOC, AFRC, and HQ AFFSA
By 2015 every state wil  have UAS flying sorties supporting DoD missions. As our nation brings home the forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, a JCOE study estimates that it will take 1.1  mil ion UAS flight hours annually  to stay  prepared for future conflict. Ninety-one percent of these UAS missions including most ANG Title 32 missions will need to transit classes of airspace UAS cannot currently access because they don’t meet the most basic flight safety requirement to see and avoid. Until this is resolved there are limited basing options with the necessary access to airspace.
 
The  DoD’s  strategy  is  to  incrementally  develop UAS  airspace policies, procedures, and material capabilities  in  partnership  with  the FAA  to support DoD’s  FY10-15  bed  down plan. This  includes resolution  of  issues  surrounding  airworthiness, pilot/operator training  standards  and communications.  The  strategy  also includes  partnering  with the  FAA  and other  interagency  stakeholders  to insure UAS operations  are incorporated into  the  Next Generation Air  Transportation  System.   DoD is  currently focusing on:

1.   Policy:  The National Defense Authorization Act for FY09:
a.   Establish a joint DoD/FAA  executive committee for  conflict/dispute resolution  and act as  a focal point for airspace, aircraft certifications, aircrew  training  and  other  issues  brought to the committee
b.   Identify conflict/dispute resolution solutions to technical, procedural, and policy concerns 
c.   Identify technical, procedural, and policy solutions to achieve the increasing and ultimately routine access of such systems into the National Airspace System


•   59 -
 
2.   Procedural:  The IPT, in conjunction with the FAA is participating in a Joint UAS Workgroup.
This WG is created to identify near-term policy and procedural solutions; specifically: 
a.   Gather the  requirements  from  DoD, NASA, and DHS for UAS  airspace access  over the  next 5 years
b.   Conduct safety  assessment and hazard  analysis  based  on  the requirements, using  existing material where available and advocating additional studies.
c.   Using study results, make determinations  about where access may  be  increased procedural y  or technical y.
d.   Document results and recommendations in a plan; provide results to JPDO/NextGen.

3.  Materiel:   The near-term goal is the development of a ground-based capability to meet 14 CFR Part 91.113 Sense and Avoid requirement for local operations.  The IPT designated the Army as DoD lead to develop  a  ground-based  collision  avoidance system  that will  provide  situational  awareness  to the  UAS pilot.  While the local ground based system is being fielded, airborne SAA standards and modeling and simulation validation tools will be developed.

The long-term goal is an ABSAA system that will autonomously provide collision avoidance in a safe and efficient manner in all classes of airspace.  The main focus of this goal is the Common Sense and Avoid Program that links the Global Hawk and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance efforts. PDM III provided the direction and funding offset for this capability.   

5.2   Independent Logistics Assessments 
Objective: Review and provide product support and ILA policy guidance for future systems fielded through the rapid acquisition process; publish interim guidance by 1QFY10.
OPR: SAF AQ OCR: HAF A4/7 and A3/5

ILAs  are critical  to ensuring  effective  and efficient product supportability  for USAF  equipment.   Once operational, system supportability and material availability results can be directly linked to the amount of effort applied to conducting  thorough ILAs  throughout the  acquisition process.   Quoting from  the Independent Logistics Assessment Handbook published by AFMC/A4 in January 2006:
“The  USAF’s  ability  to  maximize  joint warfighting  effectiveness  is  predicated on  establishing  and maintaining  a foundation  of  logistics  support  throughout the  system  life cycle.

To develop this  logistics support foundation  and sustain essential Warfighter performance, the  logistics  workforce must sharpen the  focus  on  product support and sustainment planning and implementation, particularly  in the  early acquisition phases. A solid product support strategy is built around the acquisition logistics requirements and sustainment elements  and  is  the  result  of  continuous  assessment and  stakeholder  col aboration.  Independent logistics  assessments  that encompass  al   programmatic  aspects  relevant to supportability, logistics, and readiness are conducted to help accomplish these objectives.”

One  of  the important lessons  learned  from  the  acquisition  of  MQ-1 and  RQ-4 directly  from  the  ACTD process has been that it led to the failure to fully plan for life cycle product support.  This combined with the fact that no assessments like ILA were available to highlight and help mitigate those risks adversely impacted  overal   supportability  of  these two systems.   Fortunately,  material  availability  has  been maintained at acceptable levels due in large part to proactive Systems Program Office (SPO) leadership and  heavy  Contract Logistics  Support  (CLS)  expenditures.    However,  with foresight  and  increased attention to acquisition logistics, future programs can be fielded in a more normalized and fiscally efficient environment. 

5.3   Bandwidth Requirement 
Objective: New UAS programs coordinate their anticipated BLOS data and comm. link bandwidth
requirements with appropriate managers beginning FY09. 

•   60 -
 

OPR: AFRL OCR: AFSPACE
There is  a need  for a comprehensive requirements  process  that would identify  the  communication requirements for all UAS systems.  Classified special category systems do not have any visibility in the SECRET SATCOM Data Base (SDB).  Consequently when architecture studies or AoAs are done, these demanding set of requirements are not considered.  Hence results regarding “sizing” of future SATCOM architectures/systems, and possible communication  layer trades  (e.g. SATCOM vs. Airborne Comm.  node)  wil   be skewed  and  inadequate to address  the  entirety  of  the  UAS  system  of systems communications needs. 
•   61 -

ANNEX 6- ENTERING THE CORPORATE PROCESS
6.0 Key DoD Corporate Processes
There are three  key  processes  within the  DoD  that must work  in concert to  deliver the capabilities
required by  the  CCDR:  the  requirements  process; the  acquisition process; and the Planning,
Programming, Budget,  and  Execution  (PPBE)  process.   The  primary  requirements  definition  process  is the JCIDS, described in Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170. The interrelationship between these processes is depicted in figure 10.

The  three key  DoD  corporate  processes  were, for the most part, bypassed  for UAS  procurement and fielding.   The  first systems  were developed through  the  ACTD  process. In the  absence of  a defined requirement, these systems did not compete wel  for funding through the PPBE process. Many systems were procured as a result of direct congressional  inserts and GWOT funding.   As COCOM demand for UAS support increased, the fleet size was not limited to the POR but how fast systems could be produced and fielded. SUAS  faced  similar chal enges  and  did  not align with the  corporate  process.   Long  term planning and sustainment cannot rely on an OCO funding strategy.  The flight plan outlines the first steps to align with the corporate processes.

[Anti_Illuminati]

Figure 11: DoD Corporate Processes
6.1   JCIDS Process
 
CAPABILITY


PPBE Plan & Program 10
The  primary  objective of  the  JCIDS  process  is  to identify  the  capabilities  required by  CCDRs  to successfully  execute their  missions.   These capabilities  are evaluated across  the  full  range  of  military operations  to determine  their  operational  performance criteria. DOTMLPF-P  changes  are initiated whenever current  capabilities  do  not  meet the  criteria.   Services  develop capability roadmaps  to guide their investments to satisfy these requirements over time. The USAF uses these plans to guide the CRRA process. The CRRA is the primary process to prioritize USAF capability shortfalls.  CRRA assessments contribute to development of USAF requirements and the JCIDS process. None of the current USAF UAS were developed as  a  result of  the  JCIDS  process. The  JCIDS documentation  and  approval  was accomplished after the  systems  were procured.   This  occurred  at the  end of  the  ACTD in the  case of Predator and Global Hawk, and commensurate with Congressional appropriations in the case of Reaper. The USAF UAS Flight Plan provides the vector for the CRRA and subsequent JCIDS analysis required to develop the capabilities and integrate them with Joint solutions.  

6.2   PPBE
In the PPBE process, the Secretary of Defense establishes policies, strategy, and prioritized goals for the Department. COCOMs provide inputs to CJCS and SECDEF through their IPLs. The process results in resource allocation  decisions  that balance SECDEF  guidance with fiscal  constraints. These details  of allocation  decisions are described in the POM and Budget Estimate Submission. The  USAF surpassed Quadrennial  Defense Review  targets  for increasing  UAV  combat air  patrols  over Iraq  and Afghanistan, but is still unable to meet the COCOM requirements. Additionally, UAS could support 27 (54 percent) of the 50 capability gaps identified in the FY06-11 IPLs. This flight plan is intended to influence the USAF corporate process and subsequent input to the POM/BES on funding priority of UAS for Joint operations.  

6.2.1   POM
The  POM is  a  comprehensive  description of  the  proposed  programs. Each program  is  projected  as  a time-phased allocation of resources (forces, funding, and manpower) six years into the future. In addition, the DoD may describe important programs not fully funded (or not funded at al ) in the POM.  In February 2008, the USAF presented congress with an $18.7 billion list of unfunded requirements.  The list included additional  Global  Hawk  and  Predator  UAS.   This  was  only  a small  percentage of  total  USAF  unfunded requirements.  
Almost all USAF ISR systems including UAS are currently in a “surge mode.” GWOT funding in response to this  COCOM urgent need has  consistently  expanded the  UAS  program  beyond  planned force structure.    Additionally, new  systems  were procured  without establishing  a Program  Element (PE)  or associated POR. For example, only one of the small UAS has  a USAF PE.  The USAF is attempting to migrate supplemental  OCO  funded capabilities  to the  baseline  budget. STRATCOM is  performing  an analysis  to determine  how  much of  the  operations  are being  sustained  by  supplementals.   A  clearer understanding  of  this  requires  accurate financial  reporting.   In compliance with Federal  Accounting Standards, many  of  the  unfunded ISR and  UAS  IPL  requirements  should be  “booked”  as  a contingent liability in the USAF Financial Statements.  This would give budget planners a more accurate view of the dollars that will be spent in future years.   This accounting needs to precede the FY11 budget cycle.  
  
6.2.2   BES
The  budget converts  the  long range  programmatic  view into  the  format used  by  Congress  for appropriations  acts.   DoD  includes  justification  documents  with the BES. Part of  the  conversion  to develop the BES is a repricing of the POM.  SAF/FM adjusts program dol ars to real price costs based on “actuals.”  The “actuals” are related to the cost of labor and end strength and include: Civilian personnel measured in work-years, Military personnel end-strength adjustments, and Working Capital Fund reprice for supply  and depot business  area workload  requirements.   These are vetted  through the USAF Corporate Structure (AFCS) and then sent to OSD Comptroller as a combined POM/BES.   Further, the justification  for the  UAS  budget did not account for the  urgent COCOM requirements  and subsequent GWOT  plus  up.   The  UAS  flight plan will  assist the staff  in prioritizing  funding  tradeoffs  and  provide a basis for the justification of the BES.  
  
6.2.3   Entering the USAF Corporate Process
In order to move the UAS to the baseline budget, it is important to develop a strategic plan for entering the USAF  Corporate  Process.   At the  headquarters  level, a  hierarchy  called the  AFCS  analyzes  and integrates  the  budgets  and missions  of  the  MAJCOMs, Direct Reporting  Units  (DRUs), and Field Operating Agencies (FOAs) into a seamless  USAF budget.  At its lowest level, this structure consists of USAF  Panels that have responsibilities  for particular portfolios. UAS  have primarily  been competed  as ISR platforms.   The  flight  plan identifies  current and  future UAS  capabilities  and  missions  that impact nearly all the panels. More significantly, the UAS Flight Plan attempts to move from a platform based to an effects based force structure.  

•   64 -

Figure 12: USAF POM Development Timeline

PPBE Plan & Program 52

The following schedule is a USAF POM Development Notional FY10 Timeline:
Notional y, the Timeline for FY11 will mirror the FY10 Timeline by 1 year (CY09-CY10).  However, due to the  completion  of  the  FY10   President’s  budget (PB), USAF  Planners  and Programmers  should remain flexible in building the UAS APOM for FY11.

Figure 13: FY10 Notional Timeline
Objective: Develop a strategic financial plan for migrating UAS as a supplemental-funded capability to the baseline  budget.  The  strategic  plan  should include  but not be limited  to manpower, acquisition, and sustainment. The goal  of which wil   be  to link  budget requirements  to capabilities  and requirements.
OPR: SAF/FM, OCR: UAS TF

•   65 -

6.3   Acquisition Strategy
 
6.3.1      Unmanned Aircraft Systems Acquisition Overview

JOINT FOCUS: Successful acquisition strategies for UAS cannot be based on a platform centric model.  This  is  a significant shift from  most major USAF  acquisition programs.   Achieving  platform  or system component stated  requirements  independent of  how  it integrates  with Joint forces  in the  world wide information  network  is  counterproductive.    Acquisition professionals  must understand the full  operating architectures simultaneously supporting the users around the world. At any given moment, the UAS could be  sending  information  directly  LOS  to  an  individual  soldier, while  military  intel  analysts  in the  United States are correlating it with other imagery to derive precise coordinates, and other analysts at separate locations are watching for evidence of IED activity and high value individuals at the scene.  Acquisition “success” is not optimizing the platform for a single mission, or sequential missions, but optimizing how the system integrates  with the network.  To do this  UAS acquisition professionals must understand  the Joint operating environment.  They must understand how the UAS shares information with other Service, Joint,  and  Coalition systems and C2 infrastructure.   Acquisition  professionals must also understand the anticipated  capacity  of  the  network.   A  technical  datalink  solution  optimized  for a USAF  system  that conflicts with other Joint users may be grounded by the COCOM. This acquisition paradigm is applicable to al  groups of UAS.
 
There are numerous UAS initiatives underway in the USAF and in the DoD that are not integrated. These initiatives are dependent on each other and need to be synchronized to achieve their intended capability.  This requires a master acquisition  integrator.  This has a significant impact on UAS acquisition strategy which relies  on the  prioritization  of  these initiatives  for success.   Identifying  dependencies  and setting acquisition priorities is critical to the success of the new UAS concept.

GOALS:  
1.   Deliver increased capabilities with reduced acquisition cycle times.  
2.   Reduce cost structure and measure outcome-based performance.  
3.   Drive strategic decisions that create the most value for customers and stakeholders.
4.   Reinforce credibility with DoD and other services.  

METHODOLOGY:  Based on 4 Pillars
1.   Master integrator of  compelling well  defined Joint requirements  derived  from  Global  CONOPS.
Employ  leading-edge  technologies  that guide the  development of  future effects-based  UAS capabilities.
2.   Rigorously  apply  innovative cost and performance management techniques  that reduce cost structure, and streamline acquisition processes.  
3.   Stable funding  through better  budgets  and better value.   Improved  timeliness, accuracy  and relevance of financial information.
4.   Incentivize industry  through competition  by  maximizing  the  use of  open  architectures  and the development of common industry standards for UAS procurement.  

UAS FLIGHT PLAN ACQUISITION SOLUTIONS:

•   66 -

Objective: Focus ASC on al  components of al  types of UAS including SUAS and HAA for more effective development and acquisition and fund additional manpower and resources to ensure success by 4QFY09 (test-bed for Life Cycle Management Excellence)

OPR: AFMC; OCR:  SAF/AQ, HAF A1, and HAF A2 UAS TF
Currently UAS Acquisition is stove-piped by weapon systems. There are a number of issues for example that are common  to medium  and large size UAS  that would benefit from  common  coordinated approaches. Some of these issues include datalinks, sense and avoid systems, and standard interfaces.  

ASC will focus on full institutional integration of all UAS  in the USAF and provide funding for additional manpower and resources to ensure success.  This includes aircraft, modular payloads, communications infrastructure, and ground stations.  The goal is to foster appropriate Joint UAS Acquisition with emphasis on innovation, rapid acquisition and fielding. Ideally, the  USAF  will be recognized as a UAS  acquisition Center of Excellence, delivering Joint UAS Capabilities with best practices that can be exported across DoD.

The USAF must employ leading-edge technologies that guide the development of UAS capabilities and establish better communication  with stakeholders  and industry,    and incentivize “fair  and open” competition. To this  end, the  USAF  should conduct a rigorous  NG  UAS  AoA  process  to determine  the best method  of  applying  the  evolutionary  requirements  identified in the UAS  Roadmap.   The  USAF  wil  apply the most current CJCSI 3170 and  DoDI 5000.02 guidance for UAS while adopting the acquisition lessons  learned and formalize as  part of  Develop  &  Sustain Warfighting Systems  (D&SWS)  efforts.   In order to incentivize fair and open competition in the process, the USAF wil  work with DoD and industry to establish common  standards.   Further, USAF  will  ensure UAS  capabilities  are considered in every acquisition or modification/derivative acquisition strategy.

6.3.2   Unmanned Systems Acquisition Management:
One  critical  step  to  manage the  systems  wil   be for ASC to hold the  systems  engineering and system integrator contracts.  Currently the  USAF does not own the data rights for MQ-1, MQ-9, or RQ-4.  This management action is essential for future systems to retain the ability to define and oversee the details of the integrated UAS environment.  This would begin with the stated requirements, and then build on the MAJCOM developed CONEMPs to aid in defining the optimum suite of technologies that would best fill the  capability. DoDI 5000.02  prescribes  the specific  requirements  for RDT&E.

As  technologies  are developed, they  will be demonstrated in an operationally relevant increment so they can further mature while the force provider refines the requirement and all other actions can be synchronized.  This requires a capstone Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES) for UAS  platforms and payloads to address the  unique aspects  of  each system  and how it wil   integrate as  a system-of-systems.   In the  process, the SOA interface standards would be refined.  ASC would apply this to optimize the suite of technologies for the MAJCOM defined  system-of-systems  architecture.

The TES for UAS  would address  other unique chal enges  of  testing  UAS  platforms  and payloads  that include  selection  of  the  responsible test organization (RTO) for developmental testing, contractor as the RTO, contractor proprietary information, test airspace access under current FAA rules, range safety, data telemetry, and incremental development of  capabilities.  AFMC  wil   determine  resources  needed  for these actions  potentially  including increased funding and manpower.

6.3.3   Budget Investments:
The USAF UAS Flight Plan will guide the  development and implementation of an integrated enterprise-level investment strategy approach that is based on a joint assessment of warfighting needs. Al potential and viable alternative solutions, including cross-service solutions, new acquisitions, and modifications to legacy  systems  should  be  considered.    This  strategy  will  also  draw  on the results  of  ongoing  and completed studies.

Migration to a new  UAS  baseline  budget  wil   begin after a thorough assessment of  requirements  and available resources that should be coordinated and or consolidated to affect an integrated enterprise level investment strategy. Supplementals have been used extensively to rapidly expand the UAS fleet beyond the  POR and  add  new  capability.  A  significant part of  the  capability  funded by  supplemental  funding needs to be advocated  and funded within the baseline USAF total  obligation  authority (TOA).  This will require a more disciplined approach to budgeting that requires a better linkage of budget investments to capabilities and Warfighter requirements.  

The USAF has a significant chal enge to deliver the required level of UAS capability based on a growing affordability problem for manned and unmanned systems. Specifically, operating costs, military personnel costs, and acquisition costs continue to escalate at a rate significantly higher than inflation.  Through both a near and long-term investment strategy, AFRL can make a positive change and reverse the trend of our growing affordability problem for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This is based on the equation:  Total USAF Capability  defined as  (Current Readiness  +  Future Capability)  =  TOA  received in dol ars  multiplied  by Resource Allocation Effectiveness (RAE) multiplied by the Sum of Process Efficiency defined as (Outputs divided by Cost).  

The  procurement and sustainment of  UAS  provide an  opportunity  to improve  the  “Sum  of  Process Efficiency”  by  increasing  Return on Investment (ROI). This  is  accomplished  by  first determining  the metrics  to evaluate capability.   The  technical  solutions  will  then be  compared  to the  metrics. This comparison wil  become the basis of a cost benefit assessment of the solutions. UAS acquisitions wil  be aimed at getting “needed performance not excessive performance,” and avoid the tendency to chase the next level of technology to the detriment of fielding sufficient capabilities in a timely manner.  

6.3.4   Open Architecture:
The current USAF UAS GCS do not support the UAS vision and limit flexibility and sustainability. Closed architecture does not support UAS modularity and plug-n-play adaptability. Open architecture would also support the  requirement levied  on  DoD in the  FY09 NDAA.  Section 144  of  this  Act  established  the requirement for Common  Ground  Stations  and  Payloads  for Manned  and  Unmanned Aerial  Vehicle Systems  which is  best met through  an  open  architecture approach. USAF  must require  an  open architecture with clearly defined, non-proprietary interface and enforceable standards.
  
Objective: USAF will field an open-system architecture design by 3QFY10. USAF wil  provide leadership to OSD’s effort to develop a Joint Ground Control System.
OPR: AFMC, OCR: SAF AQ, HAF UAS TF, HAF A2, HAF A4/7 and A5R

6.3.5  Technology Assessment for Tactical UAS:
SAF/AQ  interviewed stakeholders  from  20  commercial  and  10  government organizations  to identify developing  technologies  which could be  applicable to next generation  Tactical  UAS.   The  list of technologies  was  narrowed based  on the  industry-recognized  technology  readiness  level  (TRL); only those technologies  at TRL 6 or higher  were  deemed  to present acceptable risks.   TRL 6 is  defined  as system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (Ground or Space).

The  resulting list of  technologies  was  assessed  against the  desired characteristics  identified by  the operational  assessment.   Multiple  technology  solutions  were identified that should achieve identified desired  characteristics  across  the  various  categories.   SAF/AQ  found  a number of  TRL-6 options  for payloads  available today.    By  2012 the  technologies  needed for expanded  operations  in the NAS, adverse weather,  advanced payloads,  multi-aircraft formations  and ATLC  with  onboard systems  are expected to be ready.
    
1.   Ensure all  UAS  systems  identify  their  SATCOM requirements  through  the  supporting MAJCOM (e.g. ACC/A8Q)  for C2  and payload relay  in the  Joint Staff/USSTRATCOM managed  SATCOM Data Base (SDB) if there’s a possibility that SATCOM will be a potential solution for beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communication.  

** Note: It should be noted that some SATCOM systems that support UAS operations are classified; while these cannot be  described within this  document, they  are known by  UAS  communications planners  and  planners  must ensure these  capabilities  are not  overlooked  in  future SATCOM studies/architectures/systems.

•   68 -
 
2.   Conduct a business  case analysis  to determine  the  best support and  maintenance strategy  for future UAS systems OPR: A4,  OCR: UAS TF
3.   Develop a strategic  financial  plan  for migrating  UAS  as  a supplemental-funded  capability  to the baseline budget. The strategic plan should include but not be limited to manpower, acquisition, and sustainment. The goal of which wil  be to link budget requirements to capabilities and requirements.  
OPR: SAF/FM, OCR: UAS TF

6.4   Relationship with Other Organizations
6.4.1    Internal DoD Components  
The OSD UAS Task Force is leading a Department-wide effort to coordinate critical UAS issues and to develop a way ahead for UASs that wil  enhance operations, enable interdependencies, and streamline acquisition. The  Task  Force is  responsible for shaping the  policies, procedures,  certification  standards, and technology  development activities  critical  to the  integration  of  DoD  UAS  into  the  global  airspace structure and to support those systems  that are required  to fulfil   future operational  and  training requirements.  Unmanned aerial systems of the Department of Defense must operate within the NAS for training,  operational  support to the  combatant  commands, and support to  domestic  authorities  in emergencies and national disasters.  The task force is currently organized as shown:

Figure 14: OSD UAS Task Force Structure
Currently, the USAF co-leads the Airspace Integration IPT and will pursue co-lead responsibility for the Standardization  and Interoperability, and  Payloads  and  Sensors  Integration Integrated Product Teams.  The USAF wil  continue to provide substantial technical expertise and support in the areas of Frequency and Bandwidth and UAS Training and Employment IPTs.
  
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IPT:  The Research and Development IPT is tasked to identify critical Warfighter  deficiencies  with potential  to be supported  with UAS, and to link  Science &  Technology investment and Advanced/Joint Concept Technology  Demonstration  efforts.   Developed an  initial inventory  of  on-going UAS  Research and  Engineering  (R&E)  activities, and consolidated  list of  R&E needs/challenges for UAS.  

•   69 -  

STANDARDIZATION AND  INTEROPERABILITY  IPT:    The  Standardization and interoperability  IPT  is responsible for developing  interoperability  standards  profiles  for incorporation  into the  Joint Capabilities Integration Development System.   Profile wil   support a Predator/Sky  Warrior ACAT  1 program.  Completed the Ful  Motion Video (FMV)/LOS Unmanned Systems Interoperability Profile, and developing a government-owned GCS  Interface that is  STANAG  4586-based.   Other  USIP  Development Plans  in progress include BLOS SATCOM Waveforms, Target and Weapon Application, Synthetic Aperture Radar and Stil  Imagery, and UAS Weaponization.  

PAYLOAD  AND  SENSOR INTEGRATION IPT:    The  Payload  and Sensor  IPT  is  responsible for assessing  operational  requirements, identify  potential  joint acquisition  solutions, and recommend integrated training  and sustainment to  optimize UAS  payload  and  sensor development and  fielding.  Immediate focus is on Predator and Sky Warrior data-links, EO/IR and SIGINT payloads supporting the OCO.  The USAF and the Army are currently procuring common data-link and EO/IR cameras, and are jointly  developing  an  ASIP-2C SIGINT  capability.   While the  IPT  has  been focused  primarily  on  the Predator and Sky Warrior programs, they wil  be shifting focus to include other UAS.  

AIRSPACE  INTEGRATION  IPT: The  Airspace Integration  IPT  is  responsible for DoD  compliance with Congressional direction contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 09 for DoD UAS.  The IPT’s Charter  states three specific responsibilities:   Establish a joint DoD/FAA  executive committee for conflict/dispute resolution and act as a focal point for airspace, aircraft certifications, aircrew training and  other issues  brought to the  committee; Identify  conflict/dispute  resolution  solutions  to the range of technical, procedural, and policy concerns; Identify technical, procedural, and policy solutions to achieve the increasing and ultimately routine access of such systems into the National Airspace System.  

FREQUENCY AND BANDWIDTH IPT:  The Frequency and Bandwidth IPT is responsible for developing an  integrated  UAS  frequency  management plan  for all  DoD  UAS  to support the  full  range of  mission requirements.   The  immediate focus  is  to improve  the  systems  frequency  spectrum  availability  and efficiencies for the OCO.  Long range coordination is conducted with al ies overseas to insure frequency deconfliction  wil   al ow operations  outside  of  CONUS  and  within combat zones  without  interfering  with host nation or allied  use of  the  spectrum.

The  USAF  will  provide  technical  assistance on  this  IPT, but since it wil  involve treaties it must be negotiated at the Federal level.  

TRAINING  AND EMPLOYMENT  IPT:  The  Training  and  Employment IPT  is  tasked  to improve efficiencies in UAS training and employment.  The Joint Requirements Oversight Council will coordinate the development of UAS training activities and operations employment.  The JUAS COE has developed and validated a minimum set of operator qualification requirements and standards for UAS operations in the  NAS, and  continues  to develop Joint minimum  training qualifications  and standards  for all  UAS groups.

The  USAF  will  provide  technical  assistance for the  development of  training programs  and standards, but it is  incumbent on  each Service to insure that UAS  pilots/operators  meet the  CFR requirements for operations, and each Service will  develop its own tactics, techniques, and procedures for operations to meet Service, Joint and Warfighter needs.      

JOINT  UNMANNED AIRCRAFT  SYSTEM  CENTER OF  EXCELLENCE  (JUAS  COE):

Future unrestricted access to the NAS will depend on certification of UAS operators and airworthiness, reliability of flight software, and the maturation of sense and avoid technologies.  The JUAS COE developed the Joint Concept of Operations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, providing the fundamental guidance and an overarching  CONOPS  for joint operations  employment of  unmanned aircraft systems  UAS  through  a representative range  of  military  operations.   This  capabilities-based approach to UAS  employment enhances the joint and coalition operators’ ability to execute assigned missions and tasks. The document establishes joint guidance, considerations, and concepts for optimum UAS employment across the range of military operations. The  CONOPS focuses on  both the operational level of  warfare and civil support, and is intended for use by joint and coalition forces in preparing their appropriate system operational and program plans, supporting Service, joint, and coalition doctrine, and CONOPS.
 
DoD POLICY BOARD ON FEDERAL AVIATION (PBFA):  The Executive Director of the PBFA has been directed  to create a joint working  group,  composed  of  both operational  and air  traffic  service representatives, to standardize and formalize air traffic control and operations procedures for UAS.  Each service has provided one operational and one air traffic services representatives to serve on this group to participate in the development of DoD policy and planning guidance for comprehensive airspace planning between the DoD, the DOT, and the FAA for UAS operations.  

6.4.2. Governmental Departments and Agencies
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION:  The FAA  is tasked  with developing a roadmap for UAS airspace integration  to include flight safety  cases  from  flight rules, aircraft  systems  airworthiness requirements, and  operator  training  requirements.   The  FAA,  through  its  Unmanned Aircraft Program Office is  developing  a joint interagency  activity, led by  the FAA  and DoD, to implement a phased approach of  procedures, policy, and  technology.   Currently  a significant amount of  FAA  resources  are being used to work collaboratively with DoD in the development of sense and avoid capability and system safety levels.
  
The FAA, in conjunction with the Joint Planning and Development Office, has been tasked to develop the Next Generation Air  Transportation  System  (NextGen).   NextGen  system  planning currently  does  not address UAS capabilities. DoD, in partnership with NASA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, and Department of Commerce are working together to ensure that UAS operations are compatible with NextGen system design.  
 
CONGRESS:  Congress  has  determined that UAS  have become a critical  component of  military operations  and are  indispensable in the  conflict against terrorism.   UAS  must operate in the  NAS  for training,  operational  support to the  combatant  commands, and support to  domestic  authorities  in emergencies  and national  disasters.   As  recognized in a Memorandum  of  Agreement for Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Administrator  of  the  Federal  Aviation Administration in September  2007, it is  vital  for the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration to collaborate closely to achieve progress in gaining access  for unmanned aerial  systems  to  the  National  Airspace System  to support military requirements.

The NDAA for FY09 recommends the Secretary of Defense seek an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration  to establish joint Department of  Defense-Federal  Aviation Administration  executive committee which would:

1.  Act as a focal point for the resolution  of disputes on  matters of policy  and procedures between the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, and

2.  Identify solutions to the range of technical, procedural, and policy concerns arising in the integration of  Department of  Defense unmanned aerial  systems  into  the  National  Airspace System  in order  to achieve  the  increasing, and ultimately  routine, access  of  such systems  into  the National  Airspace System.
OTHER AGENCIES:  The Task Force works indirectly with NASA and DHS through other committees on the development of airspace for UAS operations.  Examples include shared facilities at common airfields, mission  airspace over natural  disasters  (wild fires, hurricane damage surveillance, search and rescue, etc).

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION:
Effective communication is  an  operational  imperative in order  to gain and maintain credibility  while boosting  understanding  of  and support for UAS operations. A  command-supported proactive communication program hinged on communicating timely, accurate and truthful information to American and world audiences  is  integral  to mission  success  and directly  supports  the Department of  Defense (DoD)  policy  of  “maximum  disclosure with  minimal  delay” regarding coverage  of  military  activities  to include people, assets and operations.

Air  Force Public  Affairs  practitioners  seek  various  avenues/opportunities  in which to highlight UAS contributions  to the  joint warfighter and inform  all  audiences  about the Air  Force’s  mission, people and future. Public Affairs professionals are charged to develop innovative methods for reaching out to diverse audiences  provided activities  fall  within established Air  Force Public  Affairs  guidelines  and are appropriately  coordinated  with MAJCOM and  HAF.

All  public  affairs  activities  are carried  out in accordance with AFI 35-101  (Public  Affairs  Policies  and Procedures)  and AFDD 2-5.3  (Public  Affairs Operations)  across  the information  domain to include print,  television and  radio, as  well  as  conducting activities directly with the public. In order to conduct a successful communication campaign, public affairs activities focus on three main areas of operation  – Media Relations, Internal Information and Community Relations. Additionally, communication  strategies  are executed at the  senior levels  of  government by appropriate Air Force leadership to enhance leaders’ and lawmakers’ understanding of UAS current and future roles.
 
Additionally  a strategic  communication  plan  was  developed  to provide  public  affairs  practitioners  and leadership with HAF-generated guidance regarding public affairs activities related to UAS operations. The communication  plan  is  a single source document containing  rules  of  engagement, Air  Force positions relating to various topics, key themes and messages and a comprehensive list of questions and answers.  The communication plan is a living document that is updated as information changes.

Current public affairs activities include identifying outreach efforts to present the Air Force’s UAS vision to DoD, other government users, academia and  industry.   This  is  accomplished through strategic participation  at key  conferences, conducting  site  visits  to Service  UAS  facilities  and developing collaborative relationships. The  USAF  UAS  message is  also broadcast by  generating  internal  stories highlighting UAS–related efforts and regular interaction with major media outlets to ensure the Air Force’s position is understood.

Currently these engagement activities are channeled through SAF/PA and the Air Force UAS Task Force. Because of the volume of requests USAF UAS Task Force staff has an assigned public affairs officer who serves as both a liaison to SAF/PA, leadership and other service UAS units, as well as a single point of contact for information regarding UAS activities.  

6.4.3.   Industry  
Direct engagement with Industry  is  through the  AFMC Program  Offices  and through  the FAA  Program Offices.   The  FAA  Technical  Center is  engaging  directly  with industry  to develop  a Modeling  and Simulation capability for UAS NAS integration.  Indirect contact is through various industry trade shows and conferences such as AFA, AUVSI, TAAC, etc.

The  USAF  is  currently  developing  both  near-term  and longer-term  sense and  avoid capabilities.   The near-term solution, funded by the Global Hawk program and managed by AFRL, is to develop SAA for the Northrop-Grumman Global Hawk and Navy BAMS.

6.4.4.   Coalition Partners  
The  NATO–CNAD (Conference of  National  Armaments  Directors)  is  actively  engaged  in developing  a sense and avoid solution for implementation with European UAS.
  
6.4.5.   International Organizations  
ICAO:  The  ICAO  UAS  study  group was  convened to identify  UAS  issues  for its  member  states  and to collaborate with existing ICAO panels to accomplish necessary tasks.  This study group will develop an initial  guidance document that ICAO  can  publish as  an  introduction to the  member  states.   This  study group met for the  first time in April, 2008, and its  first action  wil   be to deliver  a circular designed to provide  the  “ABC’s”  for UAS  operations  to those member  states  that have little to no  experience with UAS.  The US delegate to this ICAO group is the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (AIR-160).

•   72 -  

EUROCONTROL: EUROCONTROL is the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation and is the  Air  Traffic  Manager  for the  European  Continent.   AIR-160, under the  FAA/EUROCONTROL Memorandum  of  Cooperation  has  the lead in col aborating in a  number  or areas; a)  Air  Traffic Management (ATM) Integration, b)  Establishing Common  UAS  Required Levels  of  Safety  for UAS Certification  categorization/classifications,  c)  ATM Research and  Development,  and  d)  Securing UAS Spectrum Requirements.
  
6.4.6   Lead MAJCOMs
It is  the  responsibilities  of  lead MAJCOMs  to  establish  enabling  concepts, draft requirements, and accomplish all  aspects  of  the  organize/train/equip  mission.   The  lead  MAJCOM for medium  and high altitude ISR/Strike UASs  is  ACC.   The  lead  MAJCOM for airlift and air  refueling  UASs  is  AMC.    The MAJCOM for SUAS is AFSOC.

•   73 -
 
ANNEX 7- LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT
Goals and objectives  for life cycle management (LCM) chal enges associated  with UAS acquisition and sustainment have been identified  for action by  the  life cycle management community.   UAS characteristics and lessons derived from MQ-1 Predator and RQ-4 Global Hawk programs were used to inform  the  establishment of  these objectives.   From  the  LCM perspective, the vision  suggested by  this flight plan is to improve sustainment for currently fielded systems and build a strategy for acquisition and product support planning for future UAS systems.  The three primary LCM goals are:
Goal    #1:  Improve Current Sustainment Posture
Goal    #2:  Ensure Product Supportability for Future Systems
Goal    #3:  Identify & Invest in Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Sustainability (RAMS)            
                   Technologies with Particular UAS Applicability  

Each goal  will  have associated actionable objectives  with suggested OPRs  and  milestone dates.   The intent of the goals and objectives are to address those areas of policy, process and technology to enable the UAS end state communicated in previous sections of this Flight Plan.
  
7.1   Unique UAS Characteristics and LCM Implications
For the  LCM  community, basic  support for unmanned  systems  is  the  same as  for manned, legacy platforms. Materiel  reliability  requirements  are established for the  aircraft, ground  station and communications  equipment.   The  system  must undergo  a  logistics  assessment   –  the  Acquisition Sustainment (AS) Toolkit, and the Logistics Health Assessment (LHA) prior to an ILA – to ensure product support strategies  that enable  successful  fielding  and  operational  availability.  Once fielded,  the system components must be inspected and repaired at various levels of maintenance to ensure effective mission generation.   However, the  LCM  community  should recognize there are some fundamental  differences between manned and unmanned systems that affect assumptions made during the various stages of the life cycle.

1.   UAS are by nature, a system of interdependent, dispersed equipment
2.   Removing the man from the aircraft allows for increased tolerance for certain risk
3.   Mission duration is only limited by energy requirements and system health These characteristics render unmanned systems unique when compared to manned platforms.  The table below suggests some of the implications of these unique characteristics.

Figure 15: LCM Implications
These unique  characteristics  and associated  implications  require a different approach than that of manned platforms  in some  areas  of  life cycle management, especially  when  engaged in requirements generation, systems engineering, product support planning and management.  It is within the context of these unique characteristics that the LCM Goals will be addressed.    

•   75 -
 
7.2   Goal #1 Improve Current Sustainment Posture
MQ-1, MQ-9 and RQ-4 are currently deployed and successfully conducting combat sorties in support of OCO.  The performance of these systems to date has been impressive and of great use to the combatant commanders.  This success is due in large part to superior leadership provided by the responsible SPOs and the responsiveness  of  the  Original  Equipment Manufacturer  (OEM) prime contractors  and their subcontractors.  It is however not without significant cost to the government.  The lack of any substantive logistics planning during acquisition has resulted in large CLS expenditures, post-production engineering studies  and modifications  that could have been mitigated with a more rigorous  approach.   In order to address these issues with currently fielded systems, the following objectives are proposed.
    
Objective 7.2.1  Review, modify and commit to revised MQ-1, MQ-9 and RQ-4 Program Baselines as part of the FY11 Amended Program Objective Memorandum (APOM).

Summary: Due to their  usefulness, the  demand for  MQ-1, MQ-9  and RQ-4  capabilities  has  grown significantly.  In the case of the Predator, several CAP surges have been directed by both SECDEF and SECAF/CSAF.   The  Predator POR baseline  of  21  CAPs  has  not changed; however the  current USAF goal in support of OCO operations stands at 50 CAPs for combined MQ-1 and MQ-9 operations.  This is only  one  example of  the  fluid requirements  that must be  dealt with by  the  MAJCOMs  and Program Offices.

Production, test,  programming/budgeting, system  improvements, configuration control  and product support are all  adversely  affected  by  this  lack  of clearly  defined  operational  requirements  and adherence to the program baseline.  This effort should also include an increase in program baselines (all appropriations) to reduce continuing dependence on OCO supplemental funding.
 
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF/AQ, HQ ACC  
Objective 7.2.2 Publish and achieve approval of MQ-1, MQ-9 and RQ-4B Life Cycle Management Plans by 30 June 2009.

Summary: Life Cycle Management Plans  (LCMPs)  are required  for all  programs  on  the  Non-Space Program Master List.  The LCMP provides the foundational strategy for sustaining a weapon system from production, through active  operations  and culminating  with disposal.   It describes  the  underlying assumptions regarding logistics supportability  and concepts of maintenance.  This plan is critical to the effective management of all major weapon system programs.
OPR: AFMC; OCR: ACC, SAF/AQ, and HAF A4/7

Objective  7.2.3 Complete Independent Logistics Assessments for MQ-9 and RQ-4B by 31 October 2009 and submit resultant product support requirements in the FY12 POM.

Summary:  Neither the MQ-9 or RQ-4B programs conducted full ILAs during the course of the acquisition process.  The ILA is critical to the sustainment planning process.  Completing the ILAs at this point in the system’s life cycle remains an important step to assuring system availability through proper identification of support equipment and provisioning at all levels of maintenance.  The AS Toolkit and an LHA must be accomplished prior  to the  ILA.   Accomplishment of these activities  in fact make  the  ILA  easier to accomplish and will promote successful fielding and operational availability.

OPR: AFMC  
Objective  7.2.4 Define and expand  management role of 560th ACSG  System  Sustainment Manager (SSM).

Summary: The SSM provides focus on product support issues during production, fielding and subsequent operations.  One of the SSM’s roles is to ensure that the industrial base can support the weapon system throughout its operational life cycle.  Maximizing system availability to the Warfighter is a key focus.  The UAS  SSM was  established at Warner  Robins-Air  Logistics  Center (WR-ALC)  in 2006 and has  taken program management responsibility for the RQ-4A (Block 10).  It is the intent of this objective to make the SSM staff more robust and expand management responsibilities to include traditional roles expected  of the SSM.  This effort should include the initiative to transfer MQ-1B program management responsibilities, once production is complete to WR-ALC with funding programmed for this effort in the FY12 POM.  
OPR: AFMC

•   76 -
 
Objective 7.2.5 Normalize Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding through establishment of a MQ-9 and RQ-4B flying hour program; submit baseline requirements in FY12 POM.  Summary: Currently,  the majority  of  flying hour  requirements  for UAS  are generated  from  OCO operations and by nature fluctuate (typical y rise) from year to year.  However, as the fleet grows, there will  be  more stable flying hour requirements  that suggest the time has  come  to normalize the  O&M programming  process.   Among other benefits, the  flying hour program  enables  MAJCOMs  to properly plan and provision  for expected  operational  requirements.   Flying  hour  funding  flows  to the  operational Wings to enable day-to-day O&M expenditures.
OPR: ACC; OCR: HAF A3/5, and A4/7

Objective  7.2.6. Assess  maintenance  strategy  for organizational-level  UAS  aircraft  and communications maintenance and adjust programming in FY12 Summary:  Presently, 100% of current Global Hawk organizational-level maintenance is military, however future forward operating locations (FOLs) are planned to be contract maintenance.  In the case of MQ-1/9, 75% of ACC and 100% of AFSOC organizational-level maintenance requirements are executed by contractors.

The  maintenance community  must proactively  develop  a long  term  UAS  manning normalization plan.  HAF/A4/7 and HQ ACC/A4/A8 both favor 100% replacement of flight line contractors with  funded  military  authorizations.    This  manning structure will  be less  expensive and  allow greater operational  flexibility.   The  intent of  this  objective is  to clearly  define that requirement and submit for manpower funding approval in the FY12 POM.  
OPR: ACC; OCR: HAF A1 and A4/7

7.3   Goal #2 Ensure Product Supportability for Future Systems
Product supportability should be a key consideration throughout the acquisition and sustainment life cycle of  any  system.   Beginning  with requirements  generation, RAMS  considerations  should extend  beyond minimum  JCIDS  key  performance parameters  and  key  system  attributes  requirements.   Systems engineering considerations for future UAS must ensure that the systems can be evolved as capabilities and technologies  emerge, and in  response  to predictable obsolescence chal enges.

A  comprehensive support strategy should be considered early in the life cycle, which then clarifies such considerations as data rights management, organic industrial repair capability development and assignment, and concepts for field-level  maintenance.   The  following  objectives  target these challenge areas  and are informed  by MQ-1 and RQ-4 acquisition lessons learned.  
Objective  7.3.1  Define  USAF  UAS  enterprise life cycle  management strategy  through  publication of  an UAS Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) White Paper by 30 June 2009.

Summary:  The UAS ILCM White Paper will address expectations for sustainment-related requirements generation,  overarching guidance for data  rights  management plans, vision for development of  the industrial  base, and integration of  Expeditionary  Logistics  for the  21st Century  (eLog21)  initiatives  into future UAS sustainment concepts.    
OPR: HAF A4; OCR: SAF AQ and IE, AFMC, and ACC

Objective  7.3.2 Review and  provide  product support policy  and Independent Logistics  Assessment guidance for future systems  fielded through the rapid  acquisition process; publish interim guidance by October 2009.  

Summary: Eagle Look Report 06-504 identified requirements and logistics planning shortfalls associated with the  ACTD  prototyping and subsequent fielding  of  MQ-1 and RQ-4.   Refer to section  5.1.9  for additional detail.
OPR: SAF AC; OCR: SAF AQ and HAF A4

Objective  7.3.3  Review, revise and codify UAS-related engineering design standards.  Summary:  In order to take full advantage of rapidly emerging technologies and encourage Joint Service interoperability, al  components of future unmanned systems must comply with a detail set of engineering standards.  
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ  

•   77 -  

Objective   7.3.4. Ensure current Maintenance Information  Systems  (MIS)  and Expeditionary  Combat Support System (ECSS) requirements include UAS-unique information system requirements.  Summary: Current Integrated  Maintenance Data  System  (IMDS)  and Core Automated Maintenance System  (CAMS)  reporting systems  collect mission  and  operations  critical  data.    IMDS/CAMS  software deficiencies  have been identified  by  HQ  ACC that must be  addressed  in future  software releases.   In addition,  future UAS  information  systems must be  able to communicate  with ECSS.

ECSS  is  a COTS based system that enables the eLog21 and Logistics Enterprise Architecture future vision for the USAF, both  of  which are  aimed  at enhancing logistics  by  improving  processes, consolidating  systems, and providing better access to logistics information in the most cost-effective manner.  ECSS will leverage the information  technology  to  enable a seamless  flow of  information  across  the USAF  Logistics  and supporting  communities.

It is  critical  that as  ECSS  software development continues  that the  unique characteristics of UAS support are taken into account.  Examples of these unique requirements include ground control station and SATCOM status/utilization tracking, configuration management and the ability to document debriefs across multiple crews.    
OPR: AFMC; OCR: HAF A4

Objective   7.3.5. Review and modify  as  necessary  regulatory  requirements  dealing with equipment configuration management and aircraft sustainment in the context of unique UAS characteristics.  Summary: This effort will be targeted at identifying policies that may be considered over-restrictive when considering the dispersed system and risk tolerance nature of UAS operations.
OPR: HAF A4/7, OCR: SAF AC, AQ, AFMC, and ACC  

Objective    7.3.6. Develop  enlisted  maintenance training  strategy  for aircraft and  communications specialists, to include identification of necessary resources and enabling technologies.  Summary:  This effort wil  include target dates for UAS pipeline training establishment, programming estimates for dedicated simulators and virtual maintenance training technologies.  Training devices at FTDs should be equipped with the latest representative aircraft and ground systems at UAS main operating bases.  
OPR: ACC; OCR: AETC, HAF A4/7, and SAF XC

Objective 7.3.7. Align UAS strategic direction (longer term activities) with ongoing transformation of the USAF Logistics Enterprise.
Summary: UAS  development must be  in concert with the Supply  Chain Operations  (SCO)  initiatives embedded in Enterprise Logistics for the 21st Century (eLog21).   USAF Smart Operations (AFSO21) is the guiding program for transformation efforts within the USAF. Develop and Sustain Warfighting Systems (D&SWS) is one of the key enabling processes identified within AFSO21. Supply Chain Operations is a sub  process  within D&SWS.   Supply  Chain Operations  transformation, also known as  eLog21, can  be thought of as an umbrella effort that integrates and governs logistics transformation initiatives to ensure the warfighter receives the right support at the right place and the right time.  These initiatives range from organizational  changes  such as  the  USAF  Global  Logistics  Support Center (AFGLSC), predominant policy changes such as Centralized Asset Management (CAM), engineering improvements like Systems Lifecycle Integrity Management (SLIM), as well as fundamental changes to the way we approach aircraft.
OPR: AFMC; OCR: HAF A4/7 and ACC

7.4 Goal #3: Identify & Invest in RAMS Technologies with Particular UAS Applicability.  Objective 7.4.1. Increase Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) funding targeted to deploy available prognostic, diagnostic and associated sensor technologies.

Summary:  Among other attributes, some future UAS  are expected to conduct ultra-long endurance missions.   As  with space-based  systems, system  health monitoring  and assessment will  be  critical  to ensuring continual  mission  effectiveness  and  prevent the  loss  of  the  aircraft platform.   The  real-time
system  health  and prognostic  capabilities  encouraged by  the CBM+  approach is  uniquely  applicable to unmanned systems. DoDI 4151.22  describes  CBM+  as  the  “application and  integration  of  appropriate processes, technologies, and  knowledge-based  capabilities  to improve the  reliability  and maintenance
effectiveness of DoD systems and components.

CBM+ uses a systems engineering approach to collect data,  enable analysis, and  support the  decision-making  processes  for system  acquisition, sustainment,
and operations.”  This objective advocates for increasing RDT&E and production funding for the fielding of those CBM+ technologies that can be advantaged by UAS.      
OPR: AFMC; OCR: SAF AQ and AF A4/7

Objective 7.4.2. Support  increased  funding for RDT&E  studies  and initiatives  that advance mechanical and software self-healing technologies in FY12 POM.  
Summary: As with objective 3.1, ultra-long endurance UAS missions, and UAS missions in deep, denied areas  wil   benefit from  self-healing  technologies  that wil   enable  continued  mission  effectiveness  by returning the airborne platform to the operating base.
OPR: AFRL

Objective  7.4.3. Assess and mature automated ground maintenance concepts.  Summary:    Future CONOPs  suggest the  ability  for UAS  to operate in  non-permissive ground environments.   The  DoD Unmanned System  Roadmap  identifies  automated ground  refueling and munitions reloading as potential capability improvements for future unmanned logistics operations.  This objective is  intended to support studies  that will  assess  the  military  utility,  potential  ground  operations efficiencies and maintenance personnel risk reduction advantages of automating those functions.  
OPR: AFRL

•   79 -

[Anti_Illuminati]

ANNEX 8- TRAINING
 

USAF  UAS  training  programs  have  encountered  numerous  chal enges  as  unmanned aircraft rapidly matured from  advanced concept  technology  demonstrations  to substantial  programs  of  record.   Many dilemmas confronting  the UAS  community  are common  to other aviation  training programs  such as manpower, material, and fiscal limitations.  However, UAS training has several unique challenges since many of the aircraft did not undergo a classic acquisition development and fielding program.  Of the five USAF  UAS  programs  operational y  deployed, only  one has  a full  scale simulator  for initial  and  mission qualification  training.   Initial  qualification  training  has been  the  consistent limiting  factor to increased COCOM UAS capability since the 2006 QDR and current training resources provide  limited flexibility to expand production capacity as UAS ISR demand continues to grow exponential y.

While demand for the  capabilities  provided  by  UAS  has  dramatically  risen,  the  absolute  number  of mishaps has also grown (but mishap numbers have decreased as a function of flight hours).  Since the inception of  the MQ-1, the aircraft’s  cumulative mishap rate is  14 per every  100,000 flight hours  as compared to F-16’s mishap rate of 11.  Although still higher than the F-16, the MQ-1’s mishap rate has substantially decreased from 28 Class A mishaps during the first 100,000 flight hours to fewer than 7 for the most recent 100,000 hours. In the USAF’s small UAS community, there have been no Class A or B mishaps  to date.    A  defense science board study  on UAVs  and uninhabited combat aerial  vehicles  in  2004  concluded  that UAS  programs  have not yet expended the  resources  necessary  to fix  the  root causes leading to mishaps.  The largest root causes are common with manned aircraft mishaps: human and material factors.  While UAS mishaps do not threaten aircrew lives, a 2003 OSD study concluded that it was critical to improve affordability, availability, and acceptance for UAVs as these are all linked to UAS reliability.  This reliability goes toward ensuring safety for those on the ground and in the air that may be affected  by  the unmanned  aircraft, as  the  kinetic  effects  of a mishap vary  greatly  with the  size of  an
aircraft involved in a mishap.

UAS training will continue to employ proven aviation methodology derived from AETC and ACC training programs, but will  increase use of  technology  to enable training  efficiency.    Formalization  of  dedicated career  paths  and streamlined, integrated  training tracks  is  crucial  to the success  of  the  UAS  emerging capability.   The  success of  USAF  large UAS  programs  has  been  heavily  weighted upon highly experienced pilots and maintainers.  This has allowed current UAS programs the luxury of only having to provide IQT and MQT training, and no continuation training for inherently single pilot, single aircraft UAS  missions.  Similarly, maintainers have been largely drawn from existing CAF platforms and go through a Field Training  Detachment  (FTD)  course at Creech and Beale AFB.    As newly  commissioned  officers (enlisted personnel for UAS Groups 1, 2 and 3) begin to form a new cadre of UAS pilots, the foundation of prerequisite  experience will  be  eliminated.    Future  UAS  programs must grow  experience from  within,  a difficult task when a UAS crew may be comprised of one UAS pilot, remotely flying numerous aircraft, with no flight leader or other crew member to provide real-time and post-mission debrief.

Aircraft and communications  UAS  maintenance training  and career  field management will  transform  as
well.  Dedicated UAS maintenance training pipelines will need to be established at Sheppard AFB AETC. Unique  design  and  supportability  attributes  of  existing and  future UAS  and  a growing  maintenance experience base wil   enable a transition to a more generalized organizational-level  mechanical  and technical (mech/tech) AFSC structure. This evolution in maintenance specialty structure will further meld with the overarching future strategy for the maintenance career fields as part of TE 2010 initiatives.

A distinct advantage some UAS programs possess over manned aircraft programs is the applicability of high-fidelity simulation  for initial  qualification training.    Al   major AF  large UAS  programs  will develop robust simulation to support nearly al  initial qualification training.   Until DMO and LVT systems can meet this requirement, actual sorties will still be required to accomplish some training events such as package integration, JTAC-controlled CAS, and pre/post flight  maintenance.  SUAS  will  stil   require some actual  flight training due to the hands on launch and recovery requirements.  Simulation must be robust enough for pilot qualification  and realistic  enough for sensor operator certification. Dedicated ground station trainers  and simulators  will  also provide  benefits  for aircraft  and communications  maintenance


- 81 -
 
 
Air Force UAS Flight Plan


technicians.    This  wil   require additional  investment in realistic  electro-optical  and thermal  graphic generation as wel  as human behavior modeling to provide complex ISR and strike scenario generation.   In order  to successfully leverage this  training  advantage, current training  paradigms  must be  adjusted.  During an April 23, 2008 press conference, Secretary of Defense Gates challenged UAS communities to “look  at training  in a different way  than we  have  been  in  the  past”  in  order to provide  more combat capability.  The USAF is committed to developing a modern UAS training capability which can adapt  to rapidly changing technology, easily surge to meet increased production requirements, and be distributed among global UAS operations.   

UAS training will decrease dependence on one-on-one instructor to student training and increase use of personalized learning  management, simulation  enabled  computer based  training and virtual  instruction.  Today  a significant amount of  the  Global  Hawk  academic  training  is  accomplished using  personalized learning management.  The goal wil  be to move all AF UAS training programs to accomplish 75% of all training  through  self-study  allowing virtual  instructors  to introduce and  practice mission  tasks  with students.   Automated academic  and device training  performance feedback  is  essential  to strengthen standardization  and  quality.   Traditional  instruction methods  will  continue to ensure that proficiency  is demonstrated.   

Training  programs  will  pursue  modular, open architecture training systems  whose applications  can provide comprehensive training and learning management, computer based training and virtual instructor led  simulation.   Tosupport anywhere, anytime self-study, UAS  simulation  must be  scalable to provide training in a variety of training environments such as simulation enabled Computer Based Training (CBT), classroom  simulation and  full mission  simulator  training. High-fidelity  mission  simulation  must also interface with joint service distributed mission training exercises. DMO and LVT that include the C2 and DCGS/PAD  functions  are essential  to complete  critical mission  training. The  accession  of  increasing numbers of inexperienced UAS crews, the increasingly complex mission tasking, and the continued trend of single-crew operations (implying no supervision and mentoring by an experienced flight lead or high-time aircraft commander)  make realistic  interaction with other  tactical  elements  of the  joint team imperative. The essence of combat operations (including fog and friction of war) must be designed into scenarios  in order  to provide  the UAS  crew  with the  skil s, knowledge, mental  tools, and  confidence to succeed in time-compressed and uncertain environments.

Measures  of  effectiveness  collection  and automated  performance  feedback  are essential  elements  of UAS training systems  to enable self-study.    As  training  technology  matures  these same tools  will  be incorporated with UAS flights to collect aircrew performance parameters and provide continuation training automated feedback.  A robust automated feedback system integrated with simulation training and UAS flight operations is critical to reducing UAS human factor mishaps.

The USAF is committed to advanced training programs such as the USAF Weapons Instructor Course, as well as Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (JTTP) development proliferated through joint exercise  such as  Air  Warrior, Green Flag, and Red Flag.   Joint UAS  training  may  lead to greater training efficiencies and standardization. Training standards may be applied based on the type of airspace access needed by a UAS pilot and the level of Joint mission employment expected. A portion of this training will be  through DMO  and  LVT.   Among services’ common  UAS  programs, streamlined  Joint  training  will  ensure that qualified skil  sets serve the battlefield and skies in the Joint arena.

- 82 -
_________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.uasresearch.org/news/default.asp?id=37&s=0&L1=5


Chris Gummo, center, and Daniel Long, both mechanics with General Atomics, plug power cords into a Predator B -
one of five unmanned aircrafts provided by the United States Customs and Border Protection's Office of Air and Marine at Fort Drum, N.Y., Thusday, June 18, 2009.  The aircraft performs surveillance operations along the maritime border of Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway and land border of New York and Ontario. (AP/ HEATHER AINSWORTH)


Predator B began flying out of GFAFB in February.
By: William Kates, Associated Press

Grand Forks Herald
Published June 19, 2009

FORT DRUM, N.Y. — U.S. border officials are testing an unmanned surveillance aircraft to judge whether the drones can be used more widely along the U.S.-Canadian border, including at a crossing where cigarette and drug smuggling are a continuing problem.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used the remote-controlled Predator B on the Mexican border for several years. The agency began flying the first Predator on the northern border out of Grand Forks Air Force Base in February and now is testing the aircraft along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

“Lessons learned during this deployment will be a foundation for our future basing and deployment strategies for our unmanned aircraft system,” said Michael Kostelnik, the agency’s assistant commissioner for air and marine operations.

The unmanned aircraft has been temporarily based at the U.S. Army’s Wheeler-Sack Airfield since June 8 and will fly patrols from Fort Drum until the end of the month, said John Stanton, executive director of the CBP’s National Air Security Operations.

The Predator flies at about 19,000 feet and can stay aloft for up to 18 hours. It can take high definition and infrared video of anything within a 25-mile radius and has extra-sensitive radar.

Stanton said the drone has been carrying out surveillance missions for American and Canadian law enforcement agencies during its test run in upstate New York.

In assessing whether it could be deployed more widely along the 4,000-mile northern border, officials will look at how many days it could fly in the Northeast’s weather, how many hours it logged and how many mission requests it fulfilled.

The CBP owns seven Predators. Three are based in Arizona and patrol the U.S.-Mexican border. Two others are in California and are being converted for marine surveillance. The CBP estimates 18 unmanned aircraft could adequately cover the nation’s southern and northern borders, Stanton said.

The plan to use the drones is a holdover from the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended tighter security along borders with Mexico and Canada. The agency is using other high-tech equipment, including a network of video cameras and camouflaged ground sensors that detect heat, motion and metal.

The area the Predator has been watching includes the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, which straddles the U.S.-Canadian border near Massena, N.Y., and is sliced in two by the St. Lawrence River. Its location has made the reservation a gateway for smugglers at least since Prohibition.

Last fall, federal authorities carried out two large-scale busts of drug smugglers operating through St. Regis, arresting 63 people in the sweeps. Investigators said one ring made as much as $45 million smuggling 11 tons of marijuana into the eastern U.S. from 2005 to 2008.

While arrests and drug seizures last year totaled less than 1 percent of those down south, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report to Congress last year noted a “significant concern” that extremists could slip across the northern border.

[trailhound]

kushfiend wrote

wow someone break this down into laymens terms

 

This is probably a spoof but you get the idea.

[trailhound]

Nano/Micro, Man-portable:  Minimal impact
Air-launched:  Special storage facilities wil  be required for AL-SUAS.
Multi-mission:    New  facilities  will  be  required to support Tactical  UAS  squadrons.  Further, SUAS missions  require access  to  live fire ranges  and realistic  Joint urban training  areas  with the  capacity  to support integrated manned and unmanned flight operations.

 SKYNET

[Anti_Illuminati]

Reposting this here because it did not get much attention and it is directly part of what the above document partially talks about.

THIS IS DEADLY SERIOUS SHIT FOLKS, READ IT AND INTERNALIZE THE INFORMATION AND PASS IT ON TO OTHERS ASAP.

The Jason Bermas Show 4 30 09 part 1 - Dprogram.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJReYAAWIM

The Jason Bermas Show 4 30 09 part 2 - Dprogram.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z6zREps32Q

The Jason Bermas Show 4 30 09 part 3 - Dprogram.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOaWSaZj00E

***ALERT*** 1996 USAF 2009 FF - *National Acadamies* - Cyber FF Tie In /AFRL Total Cyber/Electronic info supression to ensure C.O.G. isn't overthrown
Reply #14 on: April 29, 2009, 12:18:55 PM

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=91231.msg612305#msg612305

WTF is this?:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=48795

Committee Membership Information


Project Title:    Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies

PIN:                 AFSB-J-07-02-A        

Major Unit:       Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Sub Unit:        Air Force Studies Board

RSO:               Talmage, Daniel

Subject/Focus Area:     Computers and Information Technology; Engineering and Technology; National Security and Defense; Science: Past and Future

Committee Membership
Date Posted:   07/29/2008

Mr. Gilman G. Louie - (Chair)
Alsop Louie Partners

Gilman Louie (Chair)is a partner of Alsop Louie Partners a venture capital company. Mr Louie is a former president and CEO of In-Q-Tel, the venture capital group helping to deliver new technologies to the CIA and Intelligence Community. Before helping found In-Q-Tel, Louie served as Hasbro Interactive's chief creative officer and as general manager of the Games.com group, where he was responsible for creating and implementing the business plan for Hasbro’s Internet games site. Prior to joining Hasbro, he served as chief executive of the Nexa Corporation, Sphere, Inc., Spectrum HoloByte, Inc.

As a pioneer in the interactive entertainment industry, Gilman’s successes have included the Falcon, F-16 flight simulator, and Tetris which he brought over from the Soviet Union. Louie has served on the board of directors of Wizards of the Coast, Total Entertainment Network, Direct Language, and FASA Interactive. He is an active member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security and the Information Age, and a member of the board of New Schools.org.


Dr. Prithwish Basu
BBN Technologies

Prithwish Basu is a Scientist in the Network Research group at BBN in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the innovations lead at BBN on the DARPA DTN project and a lead researcher on the CTA and ITA projects funded by the Army Research Lab. His current research interests include theoretical as well as practical aspects of disruption tolerant networking; energy efficient MAC, routing and synchronization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks; and robot networking. He is also exploring the use of biological metaphors for developing new networking algorithms. Prithwish received a BTech degree in Computer Science and Engineering from IIT Delhi (India), and MS (1999) and PhD (2003) degrees in Computer Engineering from Boston University.

Prithwish has co-authored several conference and journal articles, and two invited book chapters, and has two patents pending. He was recently named on MIT Technology Review's list of "Top Innovators under 35" in 2006. Prithwish is a member of the IEEE and the ACM, and Sigma Xi, and has served/is serving on technical program committees and organizing committees of several networking conferences. He is currently the TPC co-chair for BodyNets 2007 and a TPC member for ACM CHANTS 2007. Dr. Basu is nominated because he is a futurist with expertise in communications and networking, in particular wireless and sensor networking.


Mr. Harry Blount
Lehman Brothers

Harry Blount is CEO, and President of Blount Ventures, a company he founded in February 2008. He currently serves on the National Academy of Science Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technology. Mr. Blount spent 21 years on Wall Street where he was a leading analyst in multiple consumer and enterprise technology disciplines including: internet, wireless, PCs, servers, storage, hard drives, telecommunications, IT distribution, as well as environmental services and convertible securities. Prior to founding Blount Ventures, Mr. Blount worked at a variety of firms including: Lehman Brothers; Credit Suisse First Boston; Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette; and CIBC Oppenheimer.

Mr. Blount was named to the Institutional Investor All-American analyst teams in 2006 in Information Technology Hardware and in 2000 and 2001 for Internet Infrastructure Services. In 2002, Mr. Blount received his third Wall Street Journal award for stock picking in the Computer Hardware sector. From 2002 to 2006 (while at Lehman Brothers), Mr. Blount served as an outside advisor to Nokia Innovent, a Nokia Ventures Organization company. Innovent evaluated emerging digital home and data center technologies and business models including dynamic mesh networks, peer-to-peer computing, and intelligent agents.

He has spoken at numerous events including: World Economic Forum IT track, JIEDDO task force (a DoD initiative on Consumer Electronics), the Carlyle Group Global Partners meeting, Storage Visions, IDEMA (the Hard Disk Drive Industry Association), the Digital Home Developers Conference, and internal leadership events at Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, and Seagate among others. He has frequently appeared on CNBC and Bloomberg and has been quoted in numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Forbes, Fortune, and Business Week.

Mr. Blount is a Chartered Financial Analyst. He earned a bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse in 1986. While in school, Mr. Blount worked in the information technology department of G. Heileman Brewing Company. Mr. Blount was selected to the committee because he is a futurist with expertise in electronics, enterprise and consumer technology convergence, internet infrastructure, and networking.


Dr. Ruth A. David
ANSER (Analytic Services Inc.)

Ruth David (NAE) is the president and chief executive officer of ANSER, an independent, not-for-profit, public service research institution that provides research and analytic support on national and transnational issues. In November 1999, Dr. David initiated Analytic Services’ Homeland Defense Strategic Thrust to address the growing national concern of multidimensional, asymmetric threats from rogue nations, substate terrorist groups, and domestic terrorists.

In May 2001, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security was established to enhance public awareness and education and contribute to the dialog on the national, state, and local levels. In April 2004, the corporation was selected by the Department of Homeland Security to establish and operate a new federally funded research and development center, the Homeland Security Institute. From September 1995 to September 1998, Dr. David was Deputy Director for Science and Technology at the Central Intelligence Agency.

As Technical Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, she was responsible for research, development, and deployment of technologies in support of all phases of the intelligence process. She represented the CIA on numerous national committees and advisory bodies, including the National Science and Technology Council and the Committee on National Security. Upon her departure from this position, she was awarded the CIA's Distinguished Intelligence Medal, the CIA Director's Award, the Director of NSA Distinguished Service Medal, the National Reconnaissance Officer's Award for Distinguished Service, and the Defense Intelligence Director's Award.

Previously, Dr. David served in several leadership positions at the Sandia National Laboratories, where she began her professional career in 1975. Most recently, she was Director of Advanced Information Technologies. From 1991 to 1994, Dr. David was Director of the Development Testing Center that developed and operated a broad spectrum of full-scale engineering test facilities. Dr. David has also been an adjunct professor at the University of New Mexico. She has technical experience in digital and microprocessor-based system design, digital signal analysis, adaptive signal analysis, and system integration.

Dr. David is a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Corporation for the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. She is Chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Technology Insight-Gauge, Evaluate, and Review and Vice Chair of the HSAC Senior Advisory Committee of Academia and Policy Research. She also serves on the National Security Agency Advisory Board, the Department of Commerce Deemed Export Advisory Committee, the NRC Committee on Scientific Communication and National Security, the NRC Committee on Information for Terrorism Prevention,, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Technical Division's Advisory Board, the National Advisory Committee for the Wichita State University Foundation, and is a Director of the Hertz Foundation.

Dr. David previously served on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, the NRC Naval Studies Board, the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, the Defense Science Board, the Department of Energy Nonproliferation and National Security Advisory Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Technical Advisory Group and the Securities and Exchange Commission Technical Advisory Group. Dr. David is an Associate Fellow of AIAA, a Class Director for the AFCEA International Board of Directors, and a member of Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society and Eta Kappa Nu Electrical Engineering Society.

Dr. David received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Wichita State University (1975), an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University (1976), and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University (1981). Dr. David frequently provides speeches, interviews, lectures, briefings, and articles on the many facets of homeland security. She is the coauthor of three books on Signal Processing Algorithms and has authored or coauthored numerous papers. Dr. David is nominated for her expertise in military weapons systems, electronics, sensors, and non-lethal weapons.


Dr. Michelle Gelfand
University of Maryland, College Park

Michele Gelfand is professor of Organizational psychology at University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include cross-cultural social/organizational psychology; cultural influences on conflict, negotiation, justice, revenge, and leadership; discrimination and sexual harassment; and theory and method in assessing aspects of culture (individualism-collectivism; cultural tightness-looseness).

She received her PhD from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 1996, and has been published in many top journals including Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. She also recently published an Annual Review of Psychology chapter on cross-cultural OB with Miriam Erez and Zeynep Aycan. Dr. Gelfand is nominated because of her expertise in cross cultural communications.


Dr. Jennie S. Hwang
H-Technologies Group, Inc.

Jennie S. Hwang (NAE) is President and CEO of H-Technologies and has had a wide-ranging career encompasses international collaboration, corporate and entrepreneurial businesses, research management, innovative research and product development, technology transfer, bringing innovations to commercialization, global leadership positions, as well as corporate and university governance. Her work is highlighted by numerous national and international awards and honors, as well as distinguished Alumni Awards. Hwang is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and inducted into Women in Technology International Hall of Fame, and named the R&D-Stars-to-Watch.

Citations by the U.S. Congressional Certificates of recognition, Honorary Doctoral degree, YWCA Women Achievement Award, Ohio Women Hall of Fame are among other honors and awards. Her formal education includes a Ph.D. in Materials Science & Engineering, two M.S. degrees in Chemistry and Liquid Crystal Science, respectively, a bachelor's in Chemistry, and Harvard Business School Executive Program. In her 30-year career, she has built new businesses in the Corporate America having held senior executive positions with Lockheed Martin Corp., SCM Corp., Sherwin Williams Co. (1976-1990) and co-founded entrepreneurial businesses (1991-present). Currently, her company provides business, technology and manufacturing solutions to the global industry.

She is internationally recognized as a pioneer and long-standing leader in the fast-moving infrastructure development of electronics miniaturization and environment-friendly manufacturing. She is also an invited distinguished adj. professor of the Engineering School of Case Western Reserve University. She is the author of 300 publications including several books. Dr. Hwang is nominated because of her expertise in nanotechnology, military weapons systems development, coatings and materials, electronics, cross cultural communications, global competitiveness, global market economy, manufacturing infrastructure, and electronics industry forecast.


Dr. Anthony K. Hyder
University of Notre Dame

Anthony Hyder is associate vice president for graduate studies and research and professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Hyder’s research is in the interaction of spacecraft with the space environment. His recent work has focused on the design of spacecraft systems, especially the electrical power and thermal management subsystems, and on the operation of high sensitivity ir sensors aboard spacecraft. He has continued work also in the physics of high-brightness particle accelerators.

He has been appointed to a number of national and international panels and advisory boards including the NATO Sensors panel, the Defense Intelligence Agency Scientific Advisory Board, the Advisory Board for the Missile Defense Agency, and the Army Science Board. Dr. Hyder is a graduate of Notre Dame with a B.S. in Physics. He holds an M.S. in Space Physics and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the Air Force Institute of Technology. He received the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Distinguished Alumnus title in 2005. Dr. Hyder is nominated for his expertise in military weapons systems development, electronics, sensors, non-lethal weapons, WMD, space systems, and data fusion.


Mr. Fred Lybrand
Parish Capital

Fred Lybrand is VP, N. America for Elmarco, the first equipment provider for industrial scale production of nanofibers, where he is responsible for new markets, sales and production strategy. He has transitioned between the finance and technology sector several times including: raising and investing $2 Bn into private equity and venture capital funds on behalf of state pension plans with Parish Capital, managing sales and business development with a private equity-backed semiconductor manufacturer and financing a number of mid-market and seed stage transactions as part of Wachovia Securities. Mr. Lybrand holds an undergraduate degree in biology from the University of Virginia, an MBA from the University of North Carolina, and the CFA and LIFA charters. He currently serves on the Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies for the National Academies.


Mr. Peter Schwartz
Global Business Network

Peter Schwartz is cofounder and chairman of Global Business Network, a Monitor Group company, and a partner of the Monitor Group, a family of professional services firms devoted to enhancing client competitiveness. An internationally renowned futurist and business strategist, Peter specializes in scenario planning, working with corporations, governments, and institutions to create alternative perspectives of the future and develop robust strategies for a changing and uncertain world.

His current research and scenario work encompasses energy resources and the environment, technology, telecommunications, media and entertainment, aerospace, and national security. Mr. Schwartz is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the board of trustees of the Santa Fe Institute, the Long Now Foundation, the World Affairs Council and Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Inevitable Surprises (Gotham, 2003), a provocative look at the dynamic forces at play in the world today and their implications for business and society.

His first book, The Art of the Long View (Doubleday Currency, 1991; audio tape, 1995; paperback, 1996), is considered a seminal publication on scenario planning and has been translated into multiple languages. He is also the co-author of The Long Boom (Perseus, 1999), a vision for the world characterized by global openness, prosperity, and discovery; When Good Companies Do Bad Things (Wiley, 1999), an examination of, and argument for, corporate social responsibility; and China's Futures (Jossey-Bass, 2001), which describes very different scenarios for China and their international implications. He publishes and lectures widely and served as a script consultant on the films "The Minority Report," "Deep Impact," "Sneakers," and "War Games." Mr. Schwartz received a B.S. in aeronautical engineering and astronautics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Mr. Schwartz is nominated because he is a futurist.


Dr. Nathan P. Siegel
Sandia National Laboratories

Nathan Siegel is a Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories. He received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering in 1998 from the California State and Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo. He attended San Diego State University from 1998 until 2000, graduating with an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. During this time he was employed at General Atomics in La Jolla and worked in the field of inertial confinement fusion energy, the subject of his Master’s thesis. He attended Virginia Tech from 2000 until 2004 when he graduated with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering.

His research at Virginia tech focused on the development and validation of advanced computational models of PEM fuel cells. Nathan has been employed at Sandia National Labs since graduating from Virginia Tech. His current research activities focus primarily on the development of solar interfaces for high temperature hydrogen-producing thermochemical (TC) cycles and on the experimental validation of novel TC cycles. He has also recently been involved in PEM fuel cell research using neutron radiography to study two-phase flow within an operating fuel cell. Dr. Siegel is nominated for his expertise in energy systems, fuell cells, solar energy, and hydrogen.


Mr. Alfonso Velosa, III
Gartner, Inc.

Alfonso Velosa, III graduated from Columbia University with a B.S. in Materials Science Engineering, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with a M.S. in Materials Science Engineering, and from Thunderbird, the Garvin School of International Management with a M.I.M. in International Management. Mr. Velosa is currently research director for semiconductors at Gartner. In this position, he focuses on semiconductor supply chain research, with a particular focus on global manufacturing and semiconductor consumption trends by electronic equipment manufacturers. Mr. Velosa previously worked for or consulted to Intel, NASA LeRC and NASA HQ, Mars & Co, and IBM Research. Mr. Velosa is nominated because of his expertise in electronics, outsourced electronics manufacturing, EMS, ODM, and semiconductor consumption.


Dr. Stephen W. Drew
Drew Solutions LLC

Stephen W. Drew, NAE, holds consultancies with a variety of pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations and is a Founder and Principle of Drew Solutions LLC. Until 2000, he worked with Merck & Company, Inc., in a series of increasingly responsible positions culminating with distinguished senior scientist. He held vice presidential positions including vice president of Vaccine Science and Technology, vice president of Vaccine Operations, and the vice president of Technical Operations and Engineering.

Prior to joining MMD in 1987, he was the senior director of Biochemical Engineering in the Merck Research Laboratories (MRL), a department that he started in 1981. Dr. Drew received his Ph.D. in biochemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Drew is member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). He has served in several capacities within the NAE and assisted numerous National Research Council committees. He currently serves on the TIGER Standing committee. He was chair of the advisory committee to the Engineering Directorate of the National Science Foundation.


Dr. Paul Saffo
Saffo.com

Paul Saffo is a forecaster with over two decades experience exploring long-term technological change and its impact on business and society. He advises private and governmental clients worldwide, and teaches at Stanford where he is a Consulting Associate Professor in the Engineering School and a Visiting Scholar in the Media-X Program. He is a Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.

Mr. Saffo was the founding Chairman of the Samsung Science Board, and serves on a variety of other boards including the Long Now Foundation, and the Singapore National Research Foundation Science Advisory Board. Paul writes a column on technology issues for ABCNews.com and essays have appeared in publications from The Harvard Business Review, Foreign Policy, Fortune, Wired, The Los Angeles Times, to Newsweek, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Paul holds degrees from Harvard College, Cambridge University, and Stanford University.


Committee Membership Roster Comments
Dr. Drew was added to the committee on 07/08/2008.
Dr. Saffo was added to the committee on 07/29/2008.
________________________________________________________

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

Live Webcast Today on U.S. Use of Cyberattack

A new report will discuss the technological, policy, legal, and ethical issues involved in the use of offensive cyberattack. Listen to the live audio webcast of the public briefing from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EDT April 29.

Please refresh this page after 12:55 p.m. for a link to the webcast audio.
________________________________________________________
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=042423009

Reports of cyberespionage -- such as the computer breach in the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter project reported recently -- raise questions regarding the United States' ability to defend against cyberattacks. Less frequently discussed, however, is whether the U.S. should be employing cyberattack offensively, as a component of the national military and intelligence arsenal. A new report from the National Research Council, TECHNOLOGY, POLICY, LAW, AND ETHICS REGARDING U.S. ACQUISITION AND USE OF CYBERATTACK CAPABILITIES, discusses issues surrounding U.S. use of offensive information warfare, and makes recommendations on the development of national policies regarding cyberattack.

The report will be released at a one-hour public briefing beginning at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, in the Zenger Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Those who cannot attend may listen to a live audio webcast and submit questions using an e-mail form that will become available at the start of the briefing at <www.national-academies.org>.

Participating from the committee that wrote the report:
-- William Owens (co-chair), admiral, U.S. Navy (retired), former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and former vice chairman and CEO of Nortel Corp.
-- Kenneth Dam (co-chair), Max Pam Professor Emeritus, American and Foreign Law, University of Chicago School of Law, Chicago

Advance copies will be available to reporters only starting at noon EDT on Tuesday, April 28. THE REPORT IS EMBARGOED AND NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 1 P.M. EDT ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29. To obtain a copy of the report or attend the briefing, reporters should contact the Office of News and Public Information; tel. 202-334-2138 or e-mail <news@nas.edu>.
________________________________________________________

http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=58301

Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:00 PM Eastern

Admiral William A. Owens (USN Retired) and
Kenneth W. Dam (former Deputy Secretary of State)
will brief the report.

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 Academies and the Institute of Medicine.

Cyberattack refers to deliberate actions to alter, disrupt, deceive, degrade, or destroy computer systems or networks or the information and/or programs resident in or transiting these systems or networks. This report focuses on the use of cyberattack as an instrument of U.S. national policy.

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting/

THE BRIEFING ROOM
 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                         April 27, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ANNUAL MEETING

National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.

9:12 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you so much for the wonderful welcome.  To President Cicerone, thank you very much for your leadership and for hosting us today.  To John Holdren, thanks, John, for the outstanding work that you are doing.

I was just informed backstage that Ralph and John both are 1965 graduates of MIT -- same class.  And so I'm not sure this is the perfectly prescribed scientific method, but they're sort of a control group -- (laughter) -- who ages faster:  The President's Science Advisor or the President of the Academy?  (Laughter.)  And we'll check in in a couple of years.  But it is wonderful to see them.

To all of you, to my Cabinet Secretaries and team who are here, thank you.  It is a great privilege to address the distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the leaders of the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine who've gathered here this morning.

And I'd like to begin today with a story of a previous visitor who also addressed this august body.  In April of 1921, Albert Einstein visited the United States for the first time.  And his international credibility was growing as scientists around the world began to understand and accept the vast implications of his theories of special and general relativity.  And he attended this annual meeting, and after sitting through a series of long speeches by others, he reportedly said, "I have just got a new theory of eternity."  (Laughter.)  So I will do my best to heed this cautionary tale.  (Laughter.)

The very founding of this institution stands as a testament to the restless curiosity, the boundless hope so essential not just to the scientific enterprise, but to this experiment we call America.

A few months after a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg, before Gettysburg would be won, before Richmond would fall, before the fate of the Union would be at all certain, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an act creating the National Academy of Sciences -- in the midst of civil war.

Lincoln refused to accept that our nation's sole purpose was mere survival.  He created this academy, founded the land grant colleges, and began the work of the transcontinental railroad, believing that we must add -- and I quote -- "the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery... of new and useful things."

This is America's story.  Even in the hardest times, against the toughest odds, we've never given in to pessimism; we've never surrendered our fates to chance; we have endured; we have worked hard; we sought out new frontiers.

Today, of course, we face more complex challenges than we have ever faced before:  a medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures and treatments -- attached to a health care system that holds the potential for bankruptcy to families and businesses; a system of energy that powers our economy, but simultaneously endangers our planet; threats to our security that seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness so essential to our prosperity; and challenges in a global marketplace which links the derivative trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, the office worker in America to the factory worker in China -- a marketplace in which we all share in opportunity, but also in crisis.

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities.  I fundamentally disagree.  Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.  (Applause.)

And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it's today.  We are closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the United States. And this is obviously a cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert.  But it's not a cause for alarm.  The Department of Health and Human Services has declared a public health emergency as a precautionary tool to ensure that we have the resources we need at our disposal to respond quickly and effectively.  And I'm getting regular updates on the situation from the responsible agencies.  And the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Centers for Disease Control will be offering regular updates to the American people.  And Secretary Napolitano will be offering regular updates to the American people, as well, so that they know what steps are being taken and what steps they may need to take.

But one thing is clear -- our capacity to deal with a public health challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community.  And this is one more example of why we can't allow our nation to fall behind.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what's happened.

Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter century.  Time and again we've allowed the research and experimentation tax credit, which helps businesses grow and innovate, to lapse.

Our schools continue to trail other developed countries and, in some cases, developing countries.  Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others.  Another assessment shows American 15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world.  And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.

We know that our country is better than this.  A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and technological innovation; to invest in education, in research, in engineering; to set a goal of reaching space and engaging every citizen in that historic mission.  That was the high water mark of America's investment in research and development.  And since then our investments have steadily declined as a share of our national income.  As a result, other countries are now beginning to pull ahead in the pursuit of this generation's great discoveries. 

I believe it is not in our character, the American character, to follow.  It's our character to lead.  And it is time for us to lead once again.  So I'm here today to set this goal:  We will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development.  We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science.  (Applause.)

This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history.

Just think what this will allow us to accomplish:  solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us.  We can do this.

The pursuit of discovery half a century ago fueled our prosperity and our success as a nation in the half century that followed.  The commitment I am making today will fuel our success for another 50 years.  That's how we will ensure that our children and their children will look back on this generation's work as that which defined the progress and delivered the prosperity of the 21st century.

This work begins with a historic commitment to basic science and applied research, from the labs of renowned universities to the proving grounds of innovative companies.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and with the support of Congress, my administration is already providing the largest single boost to investment in basic research in American history.  That's already happened.

This is important right now, as public and private colleges and universities across the country reckon with shrinking endowments and tightening budgets.  But this is also incredibly important for our future.  As Vannevar Bush, who served as scientific advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, famously said:  "Basic scientific research is scientific capital."

The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all.  And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that's why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research -- because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society.

No one can predict what new applications will be born of basic research:  new treatments in our hospitals, or new sources of efficient energy; new building materials; new kinds of crops more resistant to heat and to drought.

It was basic research in the photoelectric field -- in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels.  It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan.  The calculations of today's GPS satellites are based on the equations that Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.

In addition to the investments in the Recovery Act, the budget I've proposed -- and versions have now passed both the House and the Senate -- builds on the historic investments in research contained in the recovery plan.

So we double the budget of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for academic research; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which supports a wide range of pursuits from improving health information technology to measuring carbon pollution, from -- from testing "smart grid" designs to developing advanced manufacturing processes.

And my budget doubles funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, high-energy light sources, and facilities for making nano-materials -- because we know that a nation's potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools that it makes available to its researchers.

But the renewed commitment of our nation will not be driven by government investment alone.  It's a commitment that extends from the laboratory to the marketplace.  And that's why my budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent.  This is a tax credit that returns two dollars to the economy for every dollar we spend, by helping companies afford the often high costs of developing new ideas, new technologies, and new products.  Yet at times we've allowed it to lapse or only renewed it year to year.  I've heard this time and again from entrepreneurs across this country:  By making this credit permanent we make it possible for businesses to plan the kinds of projects that create jobs and economic growth.

Second, in no area will innovation be more important than in the development of new technologies to produce, use, and save energy -- which is why my administration has made an unprecedented commitment to developing a 21st century clean energy economy, and why we put a scientist in charge of the Department of Energy.  (Applause.)

Our future on this planet depends on our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution.  And our future as a nation depends upon our willingness to embrace this challenge as an opportunity to lead the world in pursuit of new discovery.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik a little more than a half century ago, Americans were stunned.  The Russians had beaten us to space.  And we had to make a choice:  We could accept defeat or we could accept the challenge.  And as always, we chose to accept the challenge.

President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education, from grade school to graduate school.  And just a few years later, a month after his address to the 1961 Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, President Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth.

The scientific community rallied behind this goal and set about achieving it.  And it would not only lead to those first steps on the moon; it would lead to giant leaps in our understanding here at home.  That Apollo program produced technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test for hazardous gasses; energy-saving building materials; fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers.  More broadly, the enormous investment in that era –- in science and technology, in education and research funding –- produced a great outpouring of curiosity and creativity, the benefits of which have been incalculable.  There are those of you in this audience who became scientists because of that commitment.  We have to replicate that.

There will be no single Sputnik moment for this generation's challenges to break our dependence on fossil fuels.  In many ways, this makes the challenge even tougher to solve –- and makes it all the more important to keep our eyes fixed on the work ahead.

But energy is our great project, this generation's great project.  And that's why I've set a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050. And that is why -- (applause) -- and that is why I'm pursuing, in concert with Congress, the policies that will help meet us -- help us meet this goal.

My recovery plan provides the incentives to double our nation's capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years -- extending the production tax credit, providing loan guarantees and offering grants to spur investment.  Just take one example:  Federally funded research and development has dropped the cost of solar panels by tenfold over the last three decades. Our renewed efforts will ensure that solar and other clean energy technologies will be competitive.

My budget includes $150 billion over 10 years to invest in sources of renewable energy as well as energy efficiency.  It supports efforts at NASA, recommended as a priority by the National Research Council, to develop new space-based capabilities to help us better understand our changing climate.

And today, I'm also announcing that for the first time, we are funding an initiative -- recommended by this organization -- called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.  (Applause.)

This is based, not surprisingly, on DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik.  It has been charged throughout its history with conducting high-risk, high-reward research.  And the precursor to the Internet, known as ARPANET, stealth technology, the Global Positioning System all owe a debt to the work of DARPA.

So ARPA-E seeks to do the same kind of high-risk, high-reward research.  My administration will pursue, as well, comprehensive legislation to place a market-based cap on carbon emissions.  We will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.  We will put in place the resources so that scientists can focus on this critical area.  And I am confident that we will find a wellspring of creativity just waiting to be tapped by researchers in this room and entrepreneurs across our country.  We can solve this problem.  (Applause.)

Now, the nation that leads the world in 21st century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century global economy.  I believe America can and must be that nation.  But in order to lead in the global economy and to ensure that our businesses can grow and innovate, and our families can thrive, we're also going to have to address the shortcomings of our health care system.

The Recovery Act will support the long overdue step of computerizing America's medical records, to reduce the duplication, waste and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

But it's important to note, these records also hold the potential of offering patients the chance to be more active participants in the prevention and treatment of their diseases.  We must maintain patient control over these records and respect their privacy.  At the same time, we have the opportunity to offer billions and billions of anonymous data points to medical researchers who may find in this information evidence that can help us better understand disease.

History also teaches us the greatest advances in medicine have come from scientific breakthroughs, whether the discovery of antibiotics, or improved public health practices, vaccines for smallpox and polio and many other infectious diseases, antiretroviral drugs that can return AIDS patients to productive lives, pills that can control certain types of blood cancers, so many others.

Because of recent progress –- not just in biology, genetics and medicine, but also in physics, chemistry, computer science, and engineering –- we have the potential to make enormous progress against diseases in the coming decades.  And that's why my administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research -- part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country.  (Applause.)

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place.  On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.  (Applause.)  Our progress as a nation –- and our values as a nation –- are rooted in free and open inquiry.  To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.  It is contrary to our way of life.  (Applause.)

That's why I've charged John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with leading a new effort to ensure that federal policies are based on the best and most unbiased scientific information.  I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions -- and not the other way around. (Laughter.)

As part of this effort, we've already launched a web site that allows individuals to not only make recommendations to achieve this goal, but to collaborate on those recommendations.  It's a small step, but one that's creating a more transparent, participatory and democratic government.

We also need to engage the scientific community directly in the work of public policy.  And that's why, today, I am announcing the appointment -- we are filling out the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, known as PCAST, and I intend to work with them closely.  Our co-chairs have already been introduced -- Dr. Varmus and Dr. Lander along with John.  And this council represents leaders from many scientific disciplines who will bring a diversity of experiences and views. And I will charge PCAST with advising me about national strategies to nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation.

In addition to John -- sorry, the -- I just noticed that I jumped the gun here -- go ahead and move it up.  (Laughter.)  I'd already -- I'd already introduced all you guys.

In biomedicine, just to give you an example of what PCAST can do, we can harness the historic convergence between life sciences and physical sciences that's underway today; undertaking public projects -- in the spirit of the Human Genome Project -- to create data and capabilities that fuel discoveries in tens of thousands of laboratories; and identifying and overcoming scientific and bureaucratic barriers to rapidly translating scientific breakthroughs into diagnostics and therapeutics that serve patients.

In environmental science, it will require strengthening our weather forecasting, our Earth observation from space, the management of our nation's land, water and forests, and the stewardship of our coastal zones and ocean fisheries.

We also need to work with our friends around the world. Science, technology and innovation proceed more rapidly and more cost-effectively when insights, costs and risks are shared; and so many of the challenges that science and technology will help us meet are global in character.  This is true of our dependence on oil, the consequences of climate change, the threat of epidemic disease, and the spread of nuclear weapons.

And that's why my administration is ramping up participation in -- and our commitment to -- international science and technology cooperation across the many areas where it is clearly in our interest to do so.  In fact, this week, my administration is gathering the leaders of the world's major economies to begin the work of addressing our common energy challenges together.

Fifth, since we know that the progress and prosperity of future generations will depend on what we do now to educate the next generation, today I'm announcing a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science.  (Applause.)  This is something I care deeply about.  Through this commitment, American students will move from the middle of the top -- from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade  -- for we know that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow.  And I don't intend to have us out-educated.

We can't start soon enough.  We know that the quality of math and science teachers is the most influential single factor in determining whether a student will succeed or fail in these subjects.  Yet in high school more than 20 percent of students in math and more than 60 percent of students in chemistry and physics are taught by teachers without expertise in these fields. And this problem is only going to get worse.  There is a projected shortfall of more than 280,000 math and science teachers across the country by 2015.

And that's why I'm announcing today that states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education's $5 billion Race to the Top program.

And I'm challenging states to dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms.  (Applause.)  I'm challenging states, as well, to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate those subjects in our schools.

And in this endeavor, we will work to support inventive approaches.  Let's create systems that retain and reward effective teachers, and let's create new pathways for experienced professionals to go into the classroom.  There are, right now, chemists who could teach chemistry, physicists who could teach physics, statisticians who could teach mathematics.  But we need to create a way to bring the expertise and the enthusiasm of these folks –- folks like you –- into the classroom.

There are states, for example, doing innovative work.  I'm pleased to announce that Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania will lead an effort with the National Governors Association to increase the number of states that are making science, technology, engineering and mathematics education a top priority. Six states are currently participating in the initiative, including Pennsylvania, which has launched an effective program to ensure that the state has the skilled workforce in place to draw the jobs of the 21st century.  And I want every state, all 50 states, to participate.

But as you know, our work does not end with a high school diploma.  For decades, we led the world in educational attainment, and as a consequence we led the world in economic growth.  The G.I. Bill, for example, helps send a generation to college.  But in this new economy, we've come to trail other nations in graduation rates, in educational achievement, and in the production of scientists and engineers.

That's why my administration has set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability to compete for the high-wage, high-tech jobs of the future –- and to foster the next generation of scientists and engineers.  In the next decade –- by 2020 –- America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.  That is a goal that we are going to set. And we've provided tax credits and grants to make a college education more affordable.

My budget also triples the number of National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships.  (Applause.)  This program was created as part of the space race five decades ago. In the decades since, it's remained largely the same size –- even as the numbers of students who seek these fellowships has skyrocketed.  We ought to be supporting these young people who are pursuing scientific careers, not putting obstacles in their path.

So this is how we will lead the world in new discoveries in this new century.  But I think all of you understand it will take far more than the work of government.  It will take all of us.  It will take all of you.  And so today I want to challenge you to use your love and knowledge of science to spark the same sense of wonder and excitement in a new generation.

America's young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity –- if called upon to join a cause larger than themselves.  We've got evidence.  You know, the average age in NASA's mission control during the Apollo 17 mission was just 26. I know that young people today are just as ready to tackle the grand challenges of this century.

So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking and showing young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you.  I want to encourage you to participate in programs to allow students to get a degree in science fields and a teaching certificate at the same time.  I want us all to think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, whether it's science festivals, robotics competitions, fairs that encourage young people to create and build and invent -- to be makers of things, not just consumers of things.

I want you to know that I'm going to be working alongside you.  I'm going to participate in a public awareness and outreach campaign to encourage students to consider careers in science and mathematics and engineering -- because our future depends on it.

And the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue these very same careers, particularly in clean energy.

It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge, and will create research opportunities for undergraduates and educational opportunities for women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields, but are no less capable of inventing the solutions that will help us grow our economy and save our planet.  (Applause.)

And it will support fellowships and interdisciplinary graduate programs and partnerships between academic institutions and innovative companies to prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge.

For we must always remember that somewhere in America there's an entrepreneur seeking a loan to start a business that could transform an industry -- but she hasn't secured it yet.  There's a researcher with an idea for an experiment that might offer a new cancer treatment -– but he hasn't found the funding yet.  There's a child with an inquisitive mind staring up at the night sky.  And maybe she has the potential to change our world  –- but she doesn't know it yet.

As you know, scientific discovery takes far more than the occasional flash of brilliance –- as important as that can be. Usually, it takes time and hard work and patience; it takes training; it requires the support of a nation.  But it holds a promise like no other area of human endeavor.

In 1968, a year defined by loss and conflict and tumult, Apollo 8 carried into space the first human beings ever to slip beyond Earth's gravity, and the ship would circle the moon 10 times before returning home.  But on its fourth orbit, the capsule rotated and for the first time Earth became visible through the windows.

Bill Anders, one of the astronauts aboard Apollo 8, scrambled for a camera, and he took a photo that showed the Earth coming up over the moon's horizon.  It was the first ever taken from so distant a vantage point, and it soon became known as "Earthrise."

Anders would say that the moment forever changed him, to see our world -- this pale blue sphere -- without borders, without divisions, at once so tranquil and beautiful and alone.

"We came all this way to explore the moon," he said, "and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth."

Yes, scientific innovation offers us a chance to achieve prosperity.  It has offered us benefits that have improved our health and our lives -- improvements we take too easily for granted.  But it gives us something more.  At root, science forces us to reckon with the truth as best as we can ascertain it.

And some truths fill us with awe.  Others force us to question long-held views.  Science can't answer every question, and indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be.  Science cannot supplant our ethics or our values, our principles or our faith.  But science can inform those things and help put those values -- these moral sentiments, that faith -- can put those things to work -- to feed a child, or to heal the sick, to be good stewards of this Earth.

We are reminded that with each new discovery and the new power it brings comes new responsibility; that the fragility, the sheer specialness of life requires us to move past our differences and to address our common problems, to endure and continue humanity's strivings for a better world.

As President Kennedy said when he addressed the National Academy of Sciences more than 45 years ago:  "The challenge, in short, may be our salvation."

Thank you all for all your past, present, and future discoveries.  (Applause.)  May God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END
9:52 A.M. EDT

[Anti_Illuminati]

So, we have Dr. "Death" David leading her team of evil mad scientists -- publicly stating we must UPGRADE our combat systems, so that we can carry out more perfect cyber false flags globally.

The summary of what they are really saying is this:

"We must insure that we the American people which are a threat that we're crushed now before it is too late...
We must crush them and crush the net before it kills us.
We Must act today! NOW NOW NOW! We Made sure this only was given out today 30 minutes prior to our webcast because we know they are watching us nearly as hardcore as we are watching them. They know what we are up to, and we must kill them and their internet NOW! We have no time left to waste  and we cannot let it exist in this current state a moment longer!"


People need to wake up - this is the NWO's top scientists freaking out saying they must stop the internet yesterday!

Not me -- them. They are freaking out saying they must do everything to advance their offensive capabilities and kill this internet  as fast as they can.

Ok, I hope you guys get it THEY are shitting themselves and saying THEY want the internet gone... Yesterday even...

[Blowback]

A Pyramid with 3 sixes?

[luckee1]

FFSBUMP  I can't read this before bed.  I know I'll have nightmares from just the glance here!  Please tell me all this info is downloadable.  I will copy this and send to everybody I know!

[Edgar]

do you really retain this or what? Jesus save us!

[trailhound]

[White Rose Sophie]

We all knew the internet (and thus the sharing of information around the world) would come under attack.  Just didn't realize how long it's been planned and how they were going to do it. 

Bump for more reading.

Thanks AI.  May GOD bless you for sharing this with us. 

[lavosslayer]

So to sum this up very succinctly from what I understand being ex-active duty air force intel and eliminate all the jargon:

1)The US Military is in the process of constructing a surveillance grid that will give them instant information on any event going on anywhere in the world. Being able to retrieve and disseminate information to soldiers on the ground in real-time at the users immediate request. (aka soldiers "quelling" a protest can instantly get information on how many people are protesting, who everyone there is (name, age, bloodtype etc.) and where they are standing all at the push of a button or a verbal request.)

2) The US Air Force is also investing huge sums of money into creating various types of Unmanned Vehicles that it seems will eventually eliminate the use for humans direct involvement in "hostile" areas reducing the manpower throughout the military (since they won't need us anyway because if they had their way most of us would be dead). Thus giving them, along with this global information grid, complete and total autonomy over the entire planet. No matter where you go or what you do there is an unmanned vehicle made to keep an eye on you making sure your being a good slave and not falling out of line...(aka sitting in a room talking about how much you hate the government and what its doing while they secretly have an unmanned spy vehicle the size and appearance of a fly sitting in the room transmitting all audio and video data back to the control room allowing them to immediately deploy troops to arrest you or, as I noticed, some of these things might even come with the ability to deploy nano-machines into the air causing whatever desired effect they are programmed to do to you.)

HOLY SHIT!!! This is just insane!! It really is Terminator in real life!!

[Anti_Illuminati]

So to sum this up very succinctly from what I understand being ex-active duty air force intel and eliminate all the jargon:

1)The US Military is in the process of constructing a surveillance grid that will give them instant information on any event going on anywhere in the world. Being able to retrieve and disseminate information to soldiers on the ground in real-time at the users immediate request. (aka soldiers "quelling" a protest can instantly get information on how many people are protesting, who everyone there is (name, age, bloodtype etc.) and where they are standing all at the push of a button or a verbal request.)

2) The US Air Force is also investing huge sums of money into creating various types of Unmanned Vehicles that it seems will eventually eliminate the use for humans direct involvement in "hostile" areas reducing the manpower throughout the military (since they won't need us anyway because if they had their way most of us would be dead). Thus giving them, along with this global information grid, complete and total autonomy over the entire planet. No matter where you go or what you do there is an unmanned vehicle made to keep an eye on you making sure your being a good slave and not falling out of line...(aka sitting in a room talking about how much you hate the government and what its doing while they secretly have an unmanned spy vehicle the size and appearance of a fly sitting in the room transmitting all audio and video data back to the control room allowing them to immediately deploy troops to arrest you or, as I noticed, some of these things might even come with the ability to deploy nano-machines into the air causing whatever desired effect they are programmed to do to you.)

HOLY SHIT!!! This is just insane!! It really is Terminator in real life!!

dude stop bitching and read my post above...it basically summerizes the main points in two paragraphs...this is some highly disturbing information that is already underway in development!

You are very intelligent.  I am glad that someone understands.  People should be thankful that I can even find the information, because few others would, and I say few to mean virtually no one.  Thank you for explaining it to them in a nutshell.  Real understanding comes from understanding their language however.  No one can convince anyone of anything better than yourself from your own self-gained knowledge, and forcing yourself to develop a palette for the truth and sharpening your discernment and ability to hyper-analyze information and learn the terms the NWO uses, learn the buzzwords the NWO uses.  Anyone who has read a lot of my posts on Ptech over the past year would understand this entire thread rather sufficiently.

Also, do not think that I breeze through this stuff.  This crap is an extreme pain for me to read and it infuriates me, I have to WORK at discerning this to realize that it is important enough to say that it is an incredibly huge deal and not be full of shit.  I may well go back over this later and quote excerpts from the entire thing and explain it more myself.  This stuff fries my brain in its voluminousness, but I work through it and get it.  I do not understand everything about it, and I will admit that, but I also know that I can learn and understand things that I currently do not understand with effort and collaborative analysis of others who have their own varying educational backgrounds.

This is 100% about collaborative research efforts and dissemination of official admissions of enemy terrorist traitors like the Air Force Research Laboratory who engineer false flags for world government and supply chain logistics, destruction/cornering of the free market to further sink their claws of vicious tyrannical control over humanity like the NRO space patch label depicts its insane lust for power into the Earth, that and their Satanic dragon emblems. 

[A Who]

HOLY CRAP! SO this is suppose to progress and be finished by 2045?!?!. And HOLY CRAP. I'm not very far from one of the biggest contributors to this conglomeration of every 80's scifi movie/tv series and Jap anime's put together. Vandenberg Air Force base that is. I'm not even kidding, I've seen a few of those MQ-la and MQ-lb drones fly over my house before, no joke, that's EXACTLY what they looked like. I've tried to find pictures of them to show people, but all I would get when I would do image searches for them, are those ones home land security and the military use right now (the more normal air plane looking ones) But those MQ-la and MQ-lb ones look like stealth bombers just a lot smaller and all white instead of black. GOOD GOD HELP US ALL. THIS INFORMATION IS THE MOST DAMNING AND MIND F*!%ING MATERIAL I HAVE EVER READ, AND I WASN'T EVEN ABLE TO UNDER STAND IT ALL. BUT THE STUFF I DID UNDERSTAND ALONE IS JUST BAFFLING AND JUST... JUST... I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY OR THING ANYMORE..... *Goes to kitchen to down the last of alcohol supply, and curls up in a ball and rocks back and forth with liqueur bottle in mouth* PS. I am greatly appreciated and thankful for you bringing us this info AI, I agree, people need to read the info for themselves, weather they can comprehend it or not, JUST READ IT AND ABSORB IT, THAT'S WHAT READING IS ABOUT. Once again, Thank you Anti_Illuminati this has been another great Mind F*** for my head to absorb what is in store for our "future".

[Ghost in the Machine]

not allot of time left Alex needs to have this over his radio show asap, we need to stop sky... after this its over folks..

[Ghost in the Machine]

to sum it up they will find you in real time anytime anywhere, like in a building hiding through heat patterns or x ray being able to identify to your blood type. You will be tracked and can be killed with little effort by UAV's... Think of the eye of Soron.. My God this will be the end of liberty for ever, there will be no more up rising complete game over forever... 

[A Who]

Also, I've come to the conclusion, after reading this, that this is probably also one of the reasons they are shutting down the domestic internet incrementally, so they can free up bandwidth. In other words, no internet for the masses, just military personnel and the upper echelon. MAN as much as I love technology and spent some of my college days studying and using technology, this kind of makes me hate technology now.

[TBH]

I'll be saving this to read tomorrow.  Already looks like very scary stuff.  Thank you for posting it A_I.

[roganvilla]

Boeing: "We develop the technology, how it is applied is up the customer."


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25768437-952,00.html

Unmanned aircraft to be tested at Kingaroy


UNMANNED aircraft will soon be flying side-by-side with piloted passenger planes if Australian scientists and US aviation giant Boeing have their way.

In a non-descript shed in suburban South Park in Seattle, a team of brilliant young Boeing engineers oversee an experiment that provides a startling glimpse into the future.

Their 30-metre by 15 metre by five-metre-high unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "swarming" laboratory looks like a small indoor cricket shed with model rotor aircraft parked on the concrete floor.

Suddenly the UAVs are airborne and swarming around the shed, their pre-determined tracks, altitudes and collision avoidance mechanisms already programmed in using advanced algorithms that could ultimately spell the end of piloted aircraft.

It is an eerie experience watching the machines buzz about without incident and without direct control inputs from any human.

The aim of this cutting edge science is to build the mathematical models that will allow uninhabited aircraft to fly safely in controlled airspace.

The algorithms developed in the swarm lab will soon be put to the test in the skies above Kingaroy in southern Queensland in the world's first ever trial of unmanned aircraft inside controlled airspace.

Small UAVs will fly in the same airspace as larger piloted planes to prove that the unmanned aircraft can operate safely alongside more traditional, human flown craft.

Inside the Boeing lab, the engineers fly up to a dozen small, four rotor UAVs simultaneously to test their theories and to establish the ground rules for safe unmanned flight in crowded airspace.

Nobody at Boeing is predicting that research into unmanned flight will extend to passenger planes.

However this bunch of geniuses in jeans and their collaborators in Australia, firmly believe that unmanned aircraft will have numerous applications ranging from search and rescue to power line inspection and bush fire fighting.

Airspace authorities in both the US and Australia, highly wary of having pilotless drones in potential conflict with airliners carrying hundreds of passengers, will require 100 per cent guarantees before they will allow the two to mix.

The work at Kingaroy is being conducted under the "Smart Skies" program by boffins from Boeing, QUT and the government's peak science body the CSIRO in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Queensland Government using five aircraft.

According to Boeing's new Australian research chief Bill Lyons the aim is clear.

"To allow (unmanned) systems to operate at least as well as human piloted systems," he said.

Senior Boeing engineer John Vian said the major challenge for unmanned aircraft operating in controlled air space is safety.

"We don't know how these systems will develop," Dr Vian said.

"For these systems to be viable they have to be reliable and totally autonomous," he said.

"We develop the technology, how it is applied is up to the customer."

Each of the aircraft dancing around the lab last week was identified using reflectors and tracked by motion cameras in a neatly choreographed display that had the young boffins glowing and old pilots scratching their heads.

The big challenge for the scientists and their Australian colleagues, is striking a balance between the military's need for mission assurance and the public's demand for absolute safety.

* Ian McPhedran travelled to Seattle as a guest of Boeing.

 

[Monkeypox]

No f**king way I'd ever get on a plane without a human pilot.

[nofakenews]

Wow that sums it up the global grid how it will be a system that is like god where it will be all knowing and seeing and if you disagree you will be toast by a drone or even some nano machines that will eliminate you at the touch of a button. The grid will cover every inch of the planet with only a few in control or even a computer that will be smarter then all humans so it can calculate your every move.

IBM promises a computer at 20,000 trillion calculations per second by 2011, which is estimated to be the speed of the human brain http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=118548.0

See we have to show how big this grid and everything is and I don't know how you get people to realize it all at once and this is why I'm up late at night trying to show others around the web and if you drop this on em they will quickly overlook what AI has really shown and the great importance of the information.

[Dig]

Radarpress, there is a new thread just for you to whine all night long: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=118589.0

Please stop trolling this thread because you do not have one tenth the time or energy to read what AI has exposed. Thanks

[Anti_Illuminati]

You will gain nothing criticizing me over anything here, and also on the flip side, there is no need to defend me.  Fight the criminal military and intelligence industrial complex, and their banker bosses instead of making the NWO's job easier by engaging in strife.  
___________________________________________________________________

What a coincidence with the timing of this:

Boeing: "We develop the technology, how it is applied is up the customer."


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25768437-952,00.html

Unmanned aircraft to be tested at Kingaroy


UNMANNED aircraft will soon be flying side-by-side with piloted passenger planes if Australian scientists and US aviation giant Boeing have their way.

In a non-descript shed in suburban South Park in Seattle, a team of brilliant young Boeing engineers oversee an experiment that provides a startling glimpse into the future.

Their 30-metre by 15 metre by five-metre-high unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "swarming" laboratory looks like a small indoor cricket shed with model rotor aircraft parked on the concrete floor.

Suddenly the UAVs are airborne and swarming around the shed, their pre-determined tracks, altitudes and collision avoidance mechanisms already programmed in using advanced algorithms that could ultimately spell the end of piloted aircraft.

It is an eerie experience watching the machines buzz about without incident and without direct control inputs from any human.

The aim of this cutting edge science is to build the mathematical models that will allow uninhabited aircraft to fly safely in controlled airspace.

The algorithms developed in the swarm lab will soon be put to the test in the skies above Kingaroy in southern Queensland in the world's first ever trial of unmanned aircraft inside controlled airspace.

Small UAVs will fly in the same airspace as larger piloted planes to prove that the unmanned aircraft can operate safely alongside more traditional, human flown craft.

Inside the Boeing lab, the engineers fly up to a dozen small, four rotor UAVs simultaneously to test their theories and to establish the ground rules for safe unmanned flight in crowded airspace.

Nobody at Boeing is predicting that research into unmanned flight will extend to passenger planes.

However this bunch of geniuses in jeans and their collaborators in Australia, firmly believe that unmanned aircraft will have numerous applications ranging from search and rescue to power line inspection and bush fire fighting.

Airspace authorities in both the US and Australia, highly wary of having pilotless drones in potential conflict with airliners carrying hundreds of passengers, will require 100 per cent guarantees before they will allow the two to mix.

The work at Kingaroy is being conducted under the "Smart Skies" program by boffins from Boeing, QUT and the government's peak science body the CSIRO in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Queensland Government using five aircraft.

According to Boeing's new Australian research chief Bill Lyons the aim is clear.

"To allow (unmanned) systems to operate at least as well as human piloted systems," he said.

Senior Boeing engineer John Vian said the major challenge for unmanned aircraft operating in controlled air space is safety.

"We don't know how these systems will develop," Dr Vian said.

"For these systems to be viable they have to be reliable and totally autonomous," he said.

"We develop the technology, how it is applied is up to the customer."

Each of the aircraft dancing around the lab last week was identified using reflectors and tracked by motion cameras in a neatly choreographed display that had the young boffins glowing and old pilots scratching their heads.

The big challenge for the scientists and their Australian colleagues, is striking a balance between the military's need for mission assurance and the public's demand for absolute safety.

* Ian McPhedran travelled to Seattle as a guest of Boeing.

[bs]

I especially liked this part...
"In the future, the warrior will have incredible combat power and responsibility with a smaller logistics footprint."

[jesqueal]

So to sum this up very succinctly from what I understand being ex-active duty air force intel and eliminate all the jargon:

1)The US Military is in the process of constructing a surveillance grid that will give them instant information on any event going on anywhere in the world. Being able to retrieve and disseminate information to soldiers on the ground in real-time at the users immediate request. (aka soldiers "quelling" a protest can instantly get information on how many people are protesting, who everyone there is (name, age, bloodtype etc.) and where they are standing all at the push of a button or a verbal request.)

This sounds like Sentient World Simulator: "an environment for testing Psychological Operations (PSYOP) and Civil Affairs activities, capable of illustrating the impact of these activities on populations. " "A Continuously Running Model of the Real World " "visualization, data mining, and data fusion techniques will be used to create concepts for the command center of the future that will give the incident commander the best possible situation awareness."

AI have you ever come across SWS? It sounds like the twin of the PTECH/PROMIS line

[Weasel]

Thank you AI for finding this info, digesting it and bringing it to us!

[pac522]

This is like Stealth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382992/ meets Deja Vu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/ meets The Terminator http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/ meets Runaway http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/

[bs]

http://www.nsm88radio.com/Aussie%20calling/AC010509.mp3

CAUTION:Quality aussie vocal tones may offend.

[kushfiend]

Wow, this is incredibly disturbing, but I think I'm only scratching the surface of understanding this new "surveillance network."

A.I. or whoever understands this - Is the network/internet for the military sentient?  Am I correct in that understanding?  Basically, they are trying to program a network that can make realtime decisions on its own to send certain troops or UAV's into combat, supplying them with real time info about the combat zone?

[trailhound]

In a complete nutshell this is Skynet from the terminator movies. 

[pac522]

In a complete nutshell this is Skynet from the terminator movies.  

It's worse than that because of the nano-machines.

Also had the wrong link in my above post for Deja Vu. Instead of the system seeing in to the past, it would be real time.

This is like Stealth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382992/ meets Deja Vu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453467/ meets The Terminator http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/ meets Runaway http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/

[Imbue]

Great Post....

I am going to read it AGAIN.

Does this now mean we need to darken the sky, so the machines cannot get their energy? Oh wait,,wrong movie....

[lavosslayer]

I just finished writing an article and submitting it to prisonplanet.com. Hopefully Alex gets it to read on the show today.

[Dig]

This is like Stealth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382992/ meets Deja Vu http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/ meets The Terminator http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/ meets Runaway http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/

Meets 'Things to come' meets 'Handmaid's Tale  meets 'Gattaca' meets 'The Island' meets '1984' meets 'Equilibrium'