rjjF11 F CoPvAGARD-AR-260

ADIOYCOPFRARIAC EERH8 EEOMN

N dlA%(,IIt " )t)H %I( J1 %1 1

AGR DVSR RPR N.6

0ehia vlainRpr~~~*~o the *:

GudneadCnroNae ypsuIon

'4: AGARDTADVISORYNREPORT No.26

Technical Evaluation rReportontibto thenued

Guidanc ATANCotl PanelY SymposiumO

~~~~DISTRIBUTION AN VIAIIYSEE T

ON BACK COVER SE 2E2ECTE

89 9 21 021 A A,

AGARD-AR-260

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(ORGANISATION DU TRAIT DE LATLANTIQUE NORD)

AGARD Advisory Report No.260

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

on the

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL PANEL SYMPOSIUM

on

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL OF UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES

by

Charles T. ElliotSEMCOR, INC

PO Box 51720 Route No 34

Farmingdale NJ 07727-0005United States

DTICELECTE

-------- SEP 22 1989 17SA

The Guidance and Control Panel 47th Symposium was held at the Letterman Army Institute of Research,Presidio of San Francisco, California, USA from 4 to 7 October 1988. The papers were compiled as

Conference Proceedings CP.436 and CP.436(S).

THE MISSION OF AGARD

According to its Charter. the mission of AGARD is to bring together the leading personalities of the NATO nations inthe fields of science and technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes:

- Recommending effective ways for the member nations to use their research and development capabilities for thecommon benefit of the NATO community

- Providing scientific and technical advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospace researchand development (with particular regard to its military application);

- Continuously stimulating advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening the common defence posture;

- Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development:

- Exchange of scientific and technical information;

- Providing assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential;

- Rendering scientific and technical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies and to member nations inconnection with research and development problems in the aerospace field.

The highest authority within AGARD is the National Delegates Board consisting of officially appointed seniorrepresentatives from each member nation. The mission of AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are composed ofexperts appointed by the National Delegates, the Consultant and Exchange Programme and the Aerospace ApplicationsStudies Programme. The results of AGARD work are reported to the member nations and the NATO Authorities throughthe AGARD series of publications of which this is one.

Participation in AGARD activities is by invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NATO nations.

The content of this publication has been reproduceddirectly from material supplied by AGARD or the authors.

Published July 1999

Copyright C AGARD 1989All Rights Reserved

ISBN 92-835-0521-2

Printed bv Spe'ialised Printing Seriices Limited40 Chigwell Lane, Loughton, Essex IGIO 3TZ

PREFACE

Unmanned Air Vehicles, which include RPVs and autonomous platforms have had a long history in the military field.Recent advances in guidance and control, in sensors and In data processing have led to an upsurge of interest in such systemswithin NATO. Several new RPVs are under development and there are numerous lessons that are being learned during thedevelopment and deployment of these systems.

This symposium intended to examine the state-of-the-art in the unmanned vehicle field covering both short rangesystems for tactical reconnaissance, target spotting and fire control and the long range systems carrying out surveillance tasksand autonomous platforms.

Les vehicules non-pilotes, qui comprennent les engins t6lipilotis (RPV) et les plateformes autonomes, sont connus delongue date clans le domaine militaire. L6s progris r~alisis r~cemment en guidage et pilotage dans le domaine des capteurs etdu traitemtent des donns sont a l'origine d'un regain d'interit pour de tels systimes au sein de l'OTAN. Plusieurs engins;non-pilotes d'une nouvelle gindration sont en cours de diveloppement et nombre d'enseigmenents sons tires au travers desrealisations et des deploiements de ces systemes.

Le but de ce Symposium etait de faire le point sur le6tat des connaissances clans cc domaine. Ainsi, le programmeenglobait A Ia fois les systimes A courte portee pour la reconnaissance tactique, le repedrage dobjectif et Is conduite du tir, etles systimes A longue port~e utilis~s pour Ia surveillance et lea plateformes autonomes.

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL PANEL OFFICERS

Chairman: Ir Pieter Ph.van den Broek Deputy Chairman: Professor Edwin B.StearDelft University of Technology Director Washington TechnologyDepartment of Aerospace Engineering CenterKluyverweg I University of Washington2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands 376 Loewe Hall - FH 10

1013 NE 40th StreetSeattle, WA 98195, USA

TECHNICAL PROGRAMME COMMITTEE

Chairmen: DrJ.Niemela USProf. J.Shepherd UK

Members: Mr J.B.Senneville FrDr H.Winter GeDr B.Mazzetti ItMr R.Dunn UKMr D.Mclver USMr J.Ramage US

PANEL EXECUTIVE

From Europe: Commandant M.Mouhamad, FAF From USA and Canada only: AGARD-NATOExecutive, GCP Attention: GCPAGARD-NATO APO New York 097777, rue Ancelle92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, France

Telephone: (1) 4738 5780Telex: 610176FFax: (1) 4738 5799

HOST PANEL COORDINATOR

Mr James K.RamageChief, Advanced Develdpment BranchWright Research and Development Center (WRDC/F1GX)Wright Patterson AFB,OH 45433-6553, USA

LOCAL COORDINATOR

Major Robert V.BamesHQ 6th ArmyAFKC -SGSPresidio of San FranciscoSan Francisco, CA 94129, USA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS/REMERCIEMENTS

The Panel wishes to express its thanks to the United States National Delegates to AGARD for the invitation to hold thismeeting in their country and for the facilities and personnel which made the meeting possible.

Le Panel tient A remercier les D6legues Nationaux des Etats Unis pris I'AGARD de leur invitation A tenir cette reuniondans leur pays et de la mise h disposition de personnel et des installations necessaires.

iv

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT on the

47TH GUIDANCE AND CONTROL PANEL TECHNICAL MEETING

Symposium on

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL OF UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES

I. INTRODUCTION

The 47th Guidance and Control Symposium on Guidance and Control of Unmanned Air

Vehicles was held at the Letterman Institute of Research, Presidio of San Franslsco,

San Fransisco, California, USA, from 4 to 7 October 1988. The Program Co-Chalrmen

for this meeting were Professor John T. Shepherd of the United Kingdom and Dr. John

Niemela of the United States. The program, as presented at the symposium, is

appended to this report. The complete compilation of papers will be published as

AGARD Conference Proceedings.

Unmanned air vehicles, which include RPVs and autonomous platforms ha-e a long

history in the military field, characterized by long periods of neglect and

indifference and short periods of intense interest. The motivation for addressing

the guidance and control of unmanned aircraft at this time sprang mainly from two

significant trends. First, the ever-increasing lethality and accuracy of modern

weaponry is monotonically increasing the risk of carrying out manned missions on the

battlefield. Thus there seems to be an expanding need for unmanned air veK:-les to

carry out an increasing diversity of missions, both offensive and defensive. Second.

using the same technologies that are producing this increased battlefield lethality

together with emerging concepts of artificial intelligence appears to offer the

potential for unmanned systems with significantly enhanced capabilities.

Consideration of these two emerging trends led the Guidance and Control Panel to the

conclusion that now was a propitipous time to explore the situation through the

vehicle of a symposium on the subject.

Accordingly, a symposium was organized on the subject of guidance and control of

unmarned air vehicles with the stated objective of examining the state-of-the-art in

the unmanned air vehicle field, covering both short range systems for tactical

reconnaissance, target spotting, and fire control, and the long range systems

carrying out surveillince tasks and autonomous platforms such as c-ulse missiles.

Although the title ot the symposium was limited to the guidance and control of

unmanned vehicles, the scope of the symposium was in fact much broader. One session,

for example, was planned to cover operational concepts, that i7, if, and if so how,

an unmanned system should be deployed in lieu of a manned system. Other sessions

were planned to cover the design of the total unmanned vehicle system, optical sensor

systems for unmanned vehicles, systems external to the vehicle needed for a total

capability, and the evaluation and test of complete unmanned vehicle systems in

addition to the core subject of guidance and control. The level of success achieved

in developing meaningful discussion of these topics was uneven, as will be discussed

in the body of this report.

This evaluation report includes consideration of the comments and

recommendations which were received from the participants in the symposium on the

form appended. Such comments are a great help to the evaluator and the efforts o4

those who took the time to make them are greatly appreciated.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1 Keynote Address

The keynote address was given by Rear Admiral William C. Rowes, Director of the

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Joint Project in the US Department of Defense. This project

has only been in existence for a short time so that only planning activities have

taken place to date. The most significant point is that the US DOD is taking a

corporate approach to the exploitation of unmanned vehicle technology after years of

false starts and inter-service rivalry. A broad spectrum of missions is being

addressed including reconnaisance and surveillance, target acquisition, command and

control, meteorological data collection, NBD detection, and disruption and deceptinn

missions. (One point brought out by Admiral Bowes with which this author strongly

agrees is that many more uses for unmanned vehicle systems will suggest themselves to

operational system users as they get their hands on the systems. If is unrealistic

to expect that all possible system appIcations can be accurately assessed. or indeed

even thought of, by rear echelon systems analysts.) Consideration of the r.eed for

systems to carry out these missions led to characterization of four types of systems.

These are: close range (0-30 fi), short range (150 km. 300 km desired), medium range

(700 km), and endurance which is not characterized by range but rather by time o+

flight which for this system may be as long as 36 hours. A.dmiral Sowes ished his

address by challenging the technical community to develop produce and support -iale

unmanned vehicle systems and assuring the community of the support of his office in

using such systems.

2. Sesson . Goerational Concepts

The first paper of this session, oresented C, Dr. Mimer of 05APU. was a summaryof findings from several AGARD Aerospace Applications itudies on unmanned aircraftaoplccations. The studies addressed the use of unmanned aircraft in the groundattack, beyond visual range alr-to-air, and high altitude long endurance surveillanceand target acquisition roles. Dr. Rumer s presentation was extremely comprehensive.He explained how AGARD studies are commissioned and accomplished as well asorese-ting the results of the soecixic studies being addressed. Point designs kot

vehicle, launch and recovery modes, command and control methodolOgies. on-boardsensor requirements etc. were presented 'or each mission conside-ed.

the other paoer in the session, presented dv Mr. uansforo of British Aerosoace,was a r-oort of studies done by his firm on the efficacy of unmanned fighteraircraft. (Mr Hansford s written Caber is unfortunately not available, as of thlwriting. In addition, due to techrccal oi

tficuities. his visual aids were not shown

urtil his oresentation was almost over. Ths makes assessment difficult. I willsa1 . however. that his oresentation under the lircumStances cas heroic.I

:he conclusion ox both oapers was that proberi designed unmanned airrrafts,stems for certain missions are feasiole. CJe interesting point brought out by Mr.Hansford was that unmanned systems should have a life-cycle cost advantage overmacined sy-tems because machines don t have to p-actice.

Session II: Renuirements and Sysems

[he first paper in this session graooled wLth the large issues first addressedin Session I. That is: What mission is an unmanned aircraft suiteo for and, havingdetermined that. how should the unmaned system be implemented. The Cader. Pesentedov ii. Martin of Command Systems Group. -s an extremely thnougnttl analysis oW how todestrov a,, enemy s effectiveness as a fighting force by, inte-dictirg his critical C3nodes using an integrated family of unmanned air vehcles. The caper *crcefU lvnignliqhteo the fact that the fev to success is the abilir., to n-ten- te i multi-oavload multi-vehicle assemblage of equipment into an effeztc.,e force lcr locatinocritical A ndes and mar

1ing them for destruction. This integration is so corolex

and the time f.or its imoleritaion so snort that man-v partsof the planning function will have to be done in software. ihe arceotance of hispoint by ooerational bersonnel is cruccial in the oattle for an-cptanw o nrrle-enftee. Mr M 1r tn O"inted )ur three areas where this *laDe ni iang isneouire: ,assigning assets: rcute olanning: and cuetng suitws

The nevt paper, presented Ov H'r. Dena- or the rAlJ K:c.o , n" -ced ft-unmanned vehicles to provide target acocjisition, nor just taijet detcticn. On themodern cattletielo. Once again. as in tie rrevioun naoer. what .- , is i means isthat tile comuter will I the mission Planning and the image nra ir'ercretario

rather than the human. The neeo for this is u:do ibtedly valid and at lmw tire the

aoproach will undoubtedly be technically feasiole. However. srn met hodolog:ns wilreer be accepted by operational personnel -nLess means ar deelooeo t 0-). ide themassu.rance that the are 'on top of" the situation and not at the mercy of a machine.

'he net pace,. presented i M. Chaillot of Dh7E AbLE. was a dic sson of thevarious methods which could be used for unma-,d vehicle 4uoance ad oh-boardSnsorls that could be used for target location et-.

Ine final two taers of this sessior addressed the caorahilities of ei-stings.stems. ihe first, lntsented 0, , . C'.ennis 4 tfrC. was a ou.te thorough etoositionui the capabilities o+ tre Proen: re-tm oattle'ield surIe ila-_e system.

5e

s-cond, oresenpted Cv M-. 13troio of Loclneed discu.ssed t', :iocii urna"red alr ve;C leS.tw. with e,-onasis s1n its ta-get location cLo91it t !nmv .u2 toe 3"dio-,- re 'c,sturtcnatelv ,ec-vssirated a a, o+ trnslat ion or itnee last <' c-are-s and

canceliation of the discussion berin i pinned ol r rice i n- c1. P lxv.,

[nce adamn aside trom the t-eiolcv;y oresemted in this session, the ies issues~ems Oil e that there is an ever- i-xsir; nemd for automation to randie the ever-increusino amount of iata Ceirg generated in ev-O-sles!g C4OS o' time. 1he-:hnologv to oermit trus is -elt on the way ot the guest ion of how to Seeo the

oroearfonal user info-med about and comfcrtable with the situaton ma. ce receivinginadnocate atrentio.

z.4 Session ill: Vehicle ouidance and Conrol

Ihis was the session addressung the core issue nf the title of the symiosiun:0J ,darnqe arid rontrol I

lhe 1irst paper, bresented c, M. bol iler of FtlyAE. was an academic enoositionof fre s¢ithesis r+ a lighte oht low cost PH) and laws for rontrol of the vehiclew1th-ct recourse to a ertical gmvr. eio!l atator, o o Sunh a des'iti on.'ld aroearto be quife Ilmcf

trd.

The next paperpresented by S. Sbuelz of Meteor, was a straightforward

description of the autopilot o the Mirach 100 air-vehicle. The concept is somewhat

unusual in that it uses OMEGA inputs in a differential mode for navigation.

The nent paper, presented by M. Redoutey of Thomson-CSF, was a description of

navigating RPV s using a radio-location system with a number of ground stations and a

beacon on the RPV. It was stated that the system designers rely on short pulses,

power management, and random-like times of transmission to avoid detection and hence

jamming. It would seem that these ground transmitters could be one of those C3 nodes

sought in paper 21.

the next paper, presented by H. Zinner of MBB, dealt witn navigation by

processing images from passive sensors. The authors frankly stated that this

approach is presently not feasible but may be in the future. If made feasible from

the computational point o view, the advantages of total passivity with connectivity

t the real world are self-evident.

The final paper, presented by M. Guyvarcn of Aerospatiale. dealt with navigation

up-dating using map data obtained from radar. Again, the concept is to use

prc.essing power, including artificial intelligenceto obtain the necessary

correlation, in lieu of human intervention.

There really was little inter-relation among the papers in this session. They

ranged from straightforward descriptions of existing systems to discussions of

concepts that are admittedly not yet feasible. Therefore. there are no further

general comments.

2 .5 5Ssion_ I: Qpti caL Systems

Unfo-tunatel, Session IV was not accomplished as the Program Committee hadintended. Iwo of the planned five papers were. in fact. not presented. Interesting

substitute papers were arranged at the eleventh hour. However, these papers were notoarticula-ly concerned with optical systems so that the planned focus of the session

v:as regrettably lost.

he first paper, one of the substitutes, presented by Mr. Pendry of MarconiDefense Systems. concerned the operation of attack drones. One interesting pointbrought out is that drones at least offer the Potential for lower tout than missiles.

['is is pecause it nay be possible to relay environmental requirements for drones

vis-a-vis those -o missiLes since drones can be stored in environmentally controlled

containers rather than having to survive hung out on aircraft hard points. The

system concept oresented uses a beon 4ste- fr ravigation and a broadband seekerfor anli-raoar attack. It was noted that the vehicle must be falrly stealthy Since

it must *! nigh to get into oositon for a steep dive too attack. A further validvoint noted is that attaci drones have several speci c requirements. Thus, it is

not realistic to expect that the attack role can be effectively filled by a "general

purpose' drone.

he ne't caper. presented by Mr. Houston of Ferranti. was basically a history ofFe rrnti -oem e'-ve Ir the area Ox synthesis of sensor packages for target

a-, isition, detection, and designation. Past emphasis has been on television, other

sensons will be eanined in the future.

In, net 0a,-m. t-e other substitute, was presented by Mr. Fry of British

Aerospace. It concerned a low cost concept for the navigation of RPVs loitering out

of line of sight of are ground ontrol station. The concept is for the loitering RPV

to interrogate previously emplaced small low-cost beacons. With proper processing,

precise knowledge of the Deacon locations is not reduired.

The two renainirg papers in tris ses5iO were both +rom Lociheed and both

addressed developments based on the Aquila system which has completed development.

The first, presented M/ Mr. Amick addressed an attempt to reduce system cost

by introducing standardization into the development of sensor platforms, the goal of

t-' program discussed was to design a common platform for all sensors, together wIthnoncon reorograsmaole controls and Ground Support Equipment. rather than the unioue

scc ial purpose system built around each sensor. as is the case today. The result ofthe program is t-e JLCHEED ADAPTIVE MODULAR PAYLOAD (LAMPS). It would seem that

this type of Process must be undertaken if the cost-reducing benefits of

standarization are ever to oe realized,

he ninal paper or the session presented by Mr. rhompson was an evcectionally

clear presentation o1 automated search algorithms for target acquisition developedf o and -aloated in the 'I. S. crey Aouila Remctely Pilotec vehiCe system.

Because of the fragmented natJrw o this session, general comments are difficult

to nae. - -er. nere is One Point that was made imlicitly that deserves beinge olmnltl-, the point is mhat he dri~e nor standardization in an attempt to

educe osm is causing major charges in the way mirms in the aerospace industry

int, -ot. ' his applles to the development 0 standard data busses, standard

s-e , -- 3 r, ecanicai -nt -fa7es, etc. as ,ei as to the sort of effort discussed

4

here.) Traditionally, suppliers have designed entire subsystems, such as a sensor

package, and delivered them to airframe manufacturers for integration with othersubsystems. However, suppliers cannot develop standard subsystems when they don t

know ,and will never know, because of proprietary considerations, the peculiar

requirements of their competitors equipment. Thus. only the prime contractor can

develop standard subsystems. This trend is changing the traditional roles of the

various firms in the aerospace community. The ultimate result of these developmentsis by no means clear but there is no question that the changes taking place are major

and the resultant effect n the make-up r4 both airframe comparDis and their

suppliers will be profound.

2.6 Session V: Systems External to the Vehicle

The first paper of this session, presented by M Olivier of ONEPA. was a

straight-forward comprehensive overview of ways to help maintain the data link

between RPV and ground in the prescence of various impediments to doing so.

The second paper, presented by H Hcrnfeld of MB8. dealt with using a odiital map

display as an aid in planning, control, and target position cete-iratlo-. Thesystem presented is called Intelligent Graphics Overla, System. 1509. The raner wentinto quite a bit of detail on the design of the various versions of the system.Unfortunately, however, it did not address in ver much deoth .h. the slster

characteristics are what they are. That is. what the underlying percex-ed reeds werethat led to the design decisions made. This is a very exciting area of technologxThe use of digitally generated maps for preriring, ann post-missxo. 'uo-tidnm iscontinually increasing as more and more people become aware of the tremendospotential such systems offer.

The next paper was presented b/ Dr. Carnenberg o MERIT 7S -0og._

addressed Dr. Dannenbergs perception of the impact of direction x-.er The

Congress in 1988 on PRPV operations. It is Dr. Dannerberg s t-sis that f-:sdirection mandated centralized control of the launor. control. and rcoe c;Mr. Dannenberg then presented a most interesting concept for accsfoinnrr-t cxmission Dlanning function. gien that centaixzed control was.This paper produced by far the strongest emotional response c. the attendees 0

in the entire symposium. Several delegates exoressed the strorol. hei cois on rrat

the bureaucracy created by attempting to centrall, cont cc P. 0cexai-,render the whole concept so untimelv as *0 hw useless. Thn: cc cove-s. 5beginning.

The next paper (which is unfortinatety nt axailaple at th1s wriro. omesenreby Mr. McGinn of GEE. concerned using imagerv f-om the SPOT satellite an a ta basefor scene matching. The conclusion of the won accoc,utsc date in x-axrte

imagery is adequate for mid-course navigation of a stand-cff xisy; e.

The final paper of this session, oreserted b M-. Sa-air c -eeo.thoughtful assessment of how to determin. tne proper Ie.el of atoratm o c, tass ,ra given system and further, how to allocate functions between hardware an sotware.A key element in Lockheed s approach to addresnn q ths 5r1em is to duic-:.prototype man-machine interfaces and get operational people in to assess tnnrmcharacter is tics.

what degree of centralization in the operation of RPVs is Just one eamole. xui.

consideration of this question has to inciude now uranizatiors a-e cart itnrec.perhaps up to and including NATO. This is obviouslv a mosr comopen issue bu onethat must be addressed continuously. Again. the ovestris o , iu ttpn get

automated, which in hardware and wnich in software are funoamen ta '- t y5 ionprocess and methodologies rot making these decisions are of the xtmost i--wace.

2.7 Session VI: Evaluation and Test

The first paper in this session, presented cv Mr. cek-ang or brxtm .eromace.addressed an unmanned bomber Primarily desioned +on 3ir-th- iirouJm ois-icys. Asopposed to the system discussed in paper 12 whicn addressed cr-marii, tl-e air-to-axrole. Based on the work done to-date, the author feels that ar MPV with a 0a' yr.

a man-in-the-loop, etc. is too complex for this mission. He thus adoresse, maty-role drones or autonomous aircraft acting in a role similar to that p a b a4necaircraft. ]he selected concept is for the Unmanned Aircraft cUMAs; tc be launchedfrom manned aircraft and autonomously penetrate, search. detect. ann attic. Stuieshave led to the choice of a millimeter wave radar as the target Sensor. The rangirjcapability of the radar permits setting up multiple target passes. One sensor !ofelt to be adequate since groups of targets, rather than single targets, are sougqt.

The final paper of this session, and indeed. of the svmDosium, was presented b,Mr. Ferguson of Lockheed. A very clear description of the kiomia sstem ,as

presented. The subject of the paper was tne test :)-oqram ,--led o.t Zr t- h.

navigation and guidance system, incl-ding a dxItScSso i 4

acltal es' <a'.. a

commodity which seems to be growing ever more rare.

The UMA bomber paper again raised the Concern about ident:hta'or z+ F-.- ,o

Foe (IFF) which always arises when autonomy and lethalit, ale rC. 11- 1c

problem is addressed solel, by reixng on re xali d! ty orezo.ts as" ,.'er

friendly forces are located. This is a ,-r, toudlesome 'h . tc ,:..) .'

which escalates, as the degree of lethal system autonoex qoms.re ac- "a'.

were only two papers in this session b'ings home the 'act 'ha' .i -r

systems is exceedingly scarce. In +act. tne -I-st oae-. 3>- ,

extensive experimental wor , concerned a postulated. at'e tra an it . ..

One wonders if there is not too mucn emphasis laced on stoci-; 3' ase- -

system to build instead of getting on with building a strawa .-ste- a-

to guide the course of further efforts.

2.8 Roundtable Discussion

Professor Shepherd was the Moderator xc, this 1s--,vc-. '' <C'i- -

manned by Dr. Dannenberg of the US, Mr. Jones of the Uk . H. P-hn -' ,Z..')x , . a-

M. Materel (FRI.

The discussion was started by asking the canevists theic -. es as r

prospects for unmanned air vehicles. C -ents were as -i!-x- : i Ci-.-P

in the Army, the situatior L t~e Aim '-e a- Al-. i-s Crc 3wy-. -

Competition is underwax on a mid-range verile. '7vrcx''' - -? ec'

earl, in 1989 for a short range veicle. Close tanni and e,,,w, Cu 0 1<-.

expected in 1990. UK: Army-in service. PN-sittiso or the erp.A

for MLPS. Ge: Using CL 289. anti-armor and anti-radar i, proi-t -lox

The second question Posed was "How aoic.!, ili we jet a-o-,- e

There was no clear answer to this question. Comments -ee: loera' i-- -: -be convinced; lanned aircraft are becoming .naffordable: Mabe he-.. .- a.sS C'

the positive Identification Friend or Poe problem.

A discussion ensued on the helicopter trreat tu -- 'a- ut a.- -.-

people felt that the threat .as not great to a small orue - , C., - -

In addition, a helicopter costs more so a one-for-one wo-ld h- 1t

The next topic of discussion was the leasibilt. teel - -

fighter aircraft. The consensus seemed to be that tecrnoiogucall. t

perfectly feasible. Courage and the political will to succeed xee' n

important things needed.

Finally, as is so often the case, ever/one agreed that Cl vs a-e trn'e>

important problem, but nobody offered any sqgestions as to whaf to 'I ,i?,' .

3. CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions presented here are solely those of the a-thor. cased Cr the

written papers, presentations, and discussions o+ the Symposlum and on the 4rm5

handed in by the symposium delegates.

3.1 There seems to be a general consensus in the technical communlty that the

technology is in hand for a vast increase in the use of unmanned air vehicles.

Accomplishment of missions ranging from reconnaissance and sur-eillance. tmngr

logistic re-supply to areas under attaci, to autonomous attack fighter and Pomber

aircraft, seem to be becoming technologically feasible. The increasing lethalit, c

the battlefield coupled with the increasing availability of sophisticated aitonation

technology seem to make this increase in unmanned air aehicle e-rioltation

inevitable. However, this expansion of use may be limited to non-lethal missions due

to the lark of capability for aut-,umuus pony-p ilentilicatxor nf irieril -r

3.2 The US Department of Defense has signalled a significant increase in the ieel

of its interest in unmanned air vehicles by creating the Unmanned Aerial VehiclesJoint Project. However, the scope of this project is limited to non-lethal ,ehiclesso that only part of the problem is being addressed by the joint proje-t oflice.

3.3 The ever-decreasing time available for decision making, together with the ever-

increasing amount of data to be considered, mandates the use of decision aids, tas-

automation, etc. The technology for this type of automated system is increasingly

available. However, the key to Success is not the technology to do the job. butrather development of means to assure operational decision makers that they are 'on

top of" the situation and not at the mercy of a machine.

6

3.4 T drive for standardization as a cost reducer Is alterine the traditionalrelatit niCs of prime airframe manufacturers and sub-sNstem suppliers. More andmorr ,b-svstem .ork is being carried out by the primes themselves in the interestso. standardization. This trend, if not carefully managed, could lead to anatmosphere which stifles initiative and diversity. Standardizatio must be apolieointelligently and cooperatively, across the industry, if an atmosphere supportive o

4

innovation is to be maintained. Achieving this important goal is a challenging task.

3.5 The degree of centralization of control of RPVs is a major factor in theultimate success or failure of an RPV system. The underlying puestion here, as it sooften is, is how best to accomplish the functions of command and control. This is anextremely complicated problem with obvious Political as well as technical dimensions.The issue must be addressed and it must be addressed in a broad forum tie. ac-os.NATO) if conclusions reached are to receive general acceptance.

4. RECOMMENOATIONS

4.1 In view of the fact that the communit, seems poised for a great e×Dansiorn t euse of unmanned air vehicles, it is recommended that the panel re-,lsit t'i toric inno more than three years. Possibly sooner.

4.- Separate and apart from the suoject of technologi for unmanned a-r ,enccles. tvo'estiin' O the degree or centralization c their operational coht-o denands earl.

carefil e-amilation. f- OGAPD Per-scace ziolzcatonv Stud, on this toit miQot Deadoroor iate.

4.- hIe nrdoer -. doeratlora, ,n eotane a JtOmation. Innisco ates. nrc.. en.ost ye add-essed c. ntw-r- rnm,ryn,, Ile. .5- ye a1e 3 eja ~edemonstrates p dperati-'. erson-e. that t- tehnizi c1ny- it re- ze '-a'h'eir d,cerns .- e Iegltimte. <I, with a naor e'tdrt P- t,,, s.wvtlo' ,i.

tine oI Svtee gal accettrnce.

7

APPENDIX I

FINAL PROGRAM

GUIDANCE AND c7.NTROL (,F UNANNLD A:I VEH:'TEZSan Francisco. California, E-A. 4-7 ,.:%+betr 14iv

Opening ceremony:

Keynote Address by Rear Admiral Willia C, F,?et

Dire ct r -f 'he NAV .Tint ?r*:o ec ff ,a.Wahingt,n, DC, O.-A

SESZSION 1: oFRA )NAL, CONCEpT.CHAIRMAN: fir. .7. Nieraela 1US1

11; Unmanned aircraft~o ctoa Aalnav-ff .i, rnAi~'A'

K. RHMER AIARD-MtS Neui 11 /I:7 FR.

12 OPeratinnal requirements AlanL.ibC. H. HANSFORD Briti'lh Aer, spa e F'

King .n-n-Thames. F,_rrey. 2.

CHAIRMAN: Dr. H. Winter (,E)

21: u :ti oev - Ad i10E 2s.ir~ ___critical C3 node interdiction o ectj '

M, I. MARTIN Command 5ystems Gr:,p. J,:Torrance. CA, 11S.

22- are "cejaio "n th OV anv"rome.

F. P. DENARO. P. A. CIGANEF TAU Corprati.-nR. M. KALAFUS Los Gatos, CA, US.

23: Comoaraizon des techni-ues .aarrguidage et de t eujdage

Comparison between self and remote guidance for unmanned aircraftB. CHAILLOT DRET/SDCE. Paris, FR.

24: The Phoenix real time battlefield surveillance systemR. W. DENNIS. P. T. JONES GEC Avionics Limited,

Rochester, Kent, UK.

25: Accurate determinationof target ioc g uimnned air vehiclesD. W. STROUD Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.

Austin, TX, US.

SEZSION III: VEHICLE GUIDANCE AND CONTROLCHAIRMAN: .3, B. SENNEVILLE (FR)

31: Lois de commande nour avinons non ail'.t minimisation du rombre decante urnSynthesis of control law, on a RPV, in order to minimize the number ofsensors.

J. L. BOIFFIER ENSAE, Toulouse. FF.

32: Miranh 1Q0 flight control sysleA. SBUELZ Meteor CAE SpA, Ronchi del

Legionari (GO), IT.

33: Suivi de la navigation de gPy's a l'alde du sstrme deN adigoicaliaation Trident IvNavigation of reconnaissance RPV's with Trident IVradiolocation system

M. PEDOUTEY, B. DUMAS Thomson-CSF, Paris, FR.

34: KavigAtion of autonomous air vehicles by passiv imaging sensorsH. ZINNER, R. SCHMIDT MBO GmbH, Muenchen, GE.D. WOLF

t5. E.-slaae de navigarso~nrr ar naItnjgraphit radar: ootiiaisation et val idatior.LIns nutil de -iuflIat1OflNavigAt is up-date ups-:g radar mapping: assessment Anid optirfisat iono :muiat ison

TF. ',I1YVARCHAroptaeVerri--res Ie Buissor,. FR,

C'HAIRMAN:C kR7OMHT CAi

41 Gu'.1s"'- asri on-, r1 f attack 4eoyie5IF. ENDPY (present rl Marconi Defence ysem

N. WINST' NE (auitho:r) IK.

rW~~~~~~~~ _, Ltjltito~spcII aad t5rge aOOu'st fA HOTTSTIN. J. JACK Re rranti Defence Systems, Ltd,

E/u Des's. Edinhargh. U3K.

1 P britishAespcr lK.

AM L~~T:ckheed Missiles &Spc 7:Austin. TX. 11S.

45. .1,,' s iano~nl~t.o ia fy~ a~i~ns edir

J. THOMPSO)N. N. M"'ODY Lockheed Missiles & SpaceC.Austin. TX. 115.

CHAIRMAN: S. LEEK (11K)

51 Fr.-te-i-on dcc ijaiso ~n Jc4 dnrneer pr svcsenee8 REVsp~scnf-mesuires3 eleorrnicues: Etude comvarativt d;

ii-Ifr-nts Prro.4des d- coatrt-,sr

REVs data liniks prote ction against electronic counter-measures : EI'N);A comiparaitive study of different types oDfECOM techniques

(7. c;LIVIER. NM TA. Directio-n Etudes de Synthese'RENRA, Chatillon. FR.

DigUital mkardisplay fo r flight ialanningz. control. and targetPr-5) tion desrmnatiin

W. H'.'RFELD MBB GMBH1Marine und Sondertechnik.

Bremen. GE.

53: An intelligent REV mission nianr.1K. DANRENBRG, G3. BARNEY Merit Technology. Inc.C. KIRELEN Plano, TX, 113.

54: Assessment oj SPOT satellite imagery as a database for sceniemnatching

M. HoWE (present~sr) E/O) Advanced Systems DivisionW. Mc'IINR (auithor) GEC Sensors Ltd. Sasildon, flK.

5 5: tisr ributi son-of hardware and software elements in unmannedair vehicle systems

L. SAW/AIR Lockheed Missiles &Space Co.Austin, TX, UiS.

&ESSION VI; EVALUATION AND TESTCHAIRMAN; PROFESSOR J. T. SHEPHERD (UK)

61: Technology and evaluatinn of unmanned air vehiclesG. SEYFANG British Aerospace MAD

Warton AerodromePreston, UK.

62: Navigation and guidan-e testing orf the Lockheed Aquilaremotely Piloted vehicleS. FERGUSON Lockheed Missiles & space Co.

Austin, TX, US.

nOUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: Professor J. T. Shepherd, Moderator

APPENDIX 2

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTGUIDANCE AND CONTROL PANEL

7. NUZ ONCCLLC. -EQ , 00,CUZLLV-.*UW-§ZINZ. ~fran~eT*I&Ph__~ C11 4 73g 5790/82 - T.1 610 179 - F-C13 4738 574R

Guidance and Control Panel 47th SymposiumGUIDANCE AND CONTROL OF UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES

October 1988, San Francisco, CA, USA

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS

Considerable time and effort was expanded by the Programme Committee, theauthors and the organisers hosting this symposium. As a result, theProgramme Committee Chairman has commissioned an expert to draft aTechnical Evaluation Report. To aid him in preparing a timely, meaningfulreport, and since we have assembled here leading technical experts in thefield, we solicit any feedback or comments you may desire to submit.These may be handwritten notes, and anonymous. If you have any questions,please contact the AGARD Staff, the Programme or the Panel Chairman.

My name and address are:

1: In your view did the papers presented meet the published objectivesof the Meeting ?

Most

About half

Very few

2: Were the topics selected for presentation of interest to you ?

j Most

About half

EVery few

3: Was the general level of the papers:

Too deep

LSatisfactory

LToo superficial

4: Were the speakers effective in presenting their topics ?

Most

About half

IZZJ Very few

5: Time was allowed for discussion after each presentation, and at theend of the Meeting. Was this:

LI IZ Too little

tI i]i About right

Too much

6: Was the meeting effectively organised (location, joining instruc-tions, duration, audio visual equipment, refreshments, etc.

EII IJ Yes

No - please amplify

7: Did language cause a problem ?

Yes - please amplify

No

8: Please add any other comments you may have:

9: Overall, what was your assessment of the meeting ?

Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Poor

IZI IZ EZI 1 ZZIZZ I ZZZ I [llT

10: Please add here any suggestions you have for follow-up activity inthis field, or for AGARD Lecture Series, Courses, Symposia etc. inother fields.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please hand it in to theregistration desk, or to any of the AGARD Staff.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Recipient's Reference 2. Originator's Reference 3. Further Reference 4. Security Classificationof DocumentAGARD AR-260 ISBN 92-835-0521-2 UNCLASSIFIED

5. Originator Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and DevelopmentNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization7 rue Ancelle, 92200 Neuilly sur Seine, France

6. Tie TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE 47th GCP SYMPOSIUM

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL OF UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES

7. Presented at

8. Author(s)/Editor(s) 9. Date

Charles T.Elliott July 1989

10. Author's/Editor's Address It. Pages

See Flyleaf. 16

12. Distribution Statement This document is distributed in accordance with AGARD

policies and regulations, which are outlined on theOutside Back Covers of all AGARD publications.

13. Keywords/Descriptors

Dilemma cost/efficiency RPVsDrones Target acquisition and identificationInertial guidance Target reconnaissanceInfrared guidance Unmanned vehicles

14. Abstract

Evaluation Report on the Guidance and Control Panel 47th Symposium held at the LettermanArmy Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, California, USA from 4th to 7th October1988.

Papers were presented covering the following headings. Operational concepts, Requirements andsystems, Vehicle guidance and control, Optical systems, Systems external to the vehicle, Evaluationand test.

/ /-

0.

Eo

w 0 LW

~z 7

0 0 .. 0 0

A - <, E 'i <-N

4,< 0 <0-

0 U p0

4~ Z 1*01 Ex4, Q

E- _= =. E4 ZZ T

'o Lt. > 9

0r- *~,~

4 , 0 ~~~~LL~0' jEO- OZ ~ ~ 4

g -'&E ~ < ~ uQ

0 U 0 1

50 E-41-

0 0

- 0 *4 ZS 04 <

U u

<.. .4. 6.'~ <

'0 L4 Z) 0

>~4 >Z :)o z w z u cKU

U 4

z~ '

-. , .§

0.0 - w~o. 0 -0

0

LU

4) 4)-~ :24) 4)

4) 4)-S -So 0

S

E

S4)

-~

0

*0

IN IN

4) It) 4) It)

It) It)0

IN IN~14 0. ~ 014)4) 4)4)

~~

C

0

LU W4) 4)

4) 4)

4) 4)

.5 .5o o

S4) 4)

4) 4)

4) 4)

>1 'N'

4) 4)

N)-' 'N'

0-

0 02o 04) 4) (SIN

CN~ (S0 ~ 0t) V It)

It) It)i