President Barack Obama says he wants to end the 12-year-old war on terror. Not so fast, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and Armed Services Committee member. Not only does Graham warn against declaring victory over al Qaeda, he wants more drones, more deployed missile defenses and more U.S. troops on the ground… Keep reading →
TYSON’S CORNER, VA: With the wars that spawned the drone revolution subsiding, if not entirely ending, the U.S. armed services are taking stock of what they’ve learned and sorting out what to do next to bolster or better the fleets of unmanned aircraft they’ve accumulated since 2001. One thing is clear: war or peace, the technology is here to stay.
A dozen years ago, a drone was still just a bee with a lousy work ethic. Today, the word isn’t just the colloquial expression for unmanned aerial systems (UAS), as most experts call them, or RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft), as the Air Force prefers. Drones are now a military necessity – especially for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). Keep reading →
Retired Lt. Gen. Deptula: Drones Best Weapons We’ve Got For Accuracy, Control, Oversight; Critics Don’t Get ItBy David Deptula
Dave Deptula, the first general charged with overseeing drones and the Air Force general in command of the Air Operations Center when the first Predator fired a Hellfire missile, steps right into the debate about whether death by drone is moral, legal or qualitatively different from other weapons that strike from afar. He says drone critics don’t understand that they work, cause fewer accidental deaths and are more precisely controllable than any other tactical weapons we’ve got. Read on. The Editor.
Many commentators are questioning the legality, efficacy and appropriateness of using Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)-also referred to inaccurately as “drones.” The truth is, RPA are the most precise means of employing force in a way that reduces collateral damage and minimizes casualties.
The critics don’t understand the reality of “drone” operations, nor do they comprehend that our adversaries are most certainly conducting an aggressive perception management campaign on this issue – a very effective one if the recent hysteria over RPA use is a measure of effectiveness. In military parlance, a “drone” is a flying target.
The media like to use it because it is only one word and they don’t have to explain what a “Remotely Piloted Aircraft” is. But the word “drone” connotes a degree of autonomy that RPAs simply do not possess. It takes over 200 people to operate a MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper RPA orbit for 24 hours. This little-known fact among the RPA naysayers is one of the reasons that the use of “drones” allows for more ethical oversight than any other weapon. Drones allow us significantly greater control, oversight, and review before a shot is fired than occurs using manned aircraft or other operations conducted by soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines.
The persistence, situational awareness, and degree of control possible with an RPA allows for the immediate suspension of lethal engagement if circumstances change or questions emerge – even after a weapon has been released or launched. RPA are networked aircraft and their data can reach any spot on earth in less than two seconds.
Hence, in addition to the hundreds of operational, maintenance, and intelligence personnel, many lawyers and senior leadership are directly involved with RPA lethal engagements. That kind of oversight is rarely, if ever, the case with the use of manned aircraft or with boots on the ground or sailors at sea. The power of our intelligence networks allows RPA essentially to carry around their own command and analysis center and legal counsel as an integral part of their payload.
How can I argue that RPA are the most precise means of employing force in a way that reduces collateral damage and minimizes casualties? The accuracy of weapons employed from a RPA is nominally less than 10 feet. The accuracy of a 155mm howitzer is around 1,000 feet, and mortar accuracy ranges from 200 to 800 feet.
None of the procedures governing the use of artillery, mortars, missiles from ships, or manned aircraft employ the oversight associated with the use of networked RPA. Furthermore, every second of an RPA’s high-fidelity video footage, communication, and aircraft parameters is recorded and stored for very precise review and evaluation. This, ironically, is one of the reasons there is so much attention on “drones.” Imagine if one could see the results of every missile, artillery, mortar, and rifle round fired.
A principal value of RPA is that they provide a perspective only available from operating in the air and persistence to a degree much greater than an aircraft occupied by a person, like the F-18 or F-16. The drones’ ability to fly over one spot for a very long time allows those flying it to observe, evaluate, and act very quickly, or to take all the time necessary to be sure they can do what they really want to do.
That precise engagement is simply not available to other types of weapons. Several well meaning, but misguided, commentators are calling for a new doctrine to guide “drone” warfare. Some have even gone so far to suggest that, “We are in the same position now, with drones, that we were with nuclear weapons in 1945.” (That’s David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker). “Drones” do not define warfare. They are tools used as part of its conduct.
Accordingly, they should be regarded and employed as all other “tools” of war are, in accordance with the laws of armed conflict and congruent with the Geneva Conventions. With respect to warnings on consequences, some have gone so far to postulate that the use of an RPA allows the adversary to paint us as “distant, high-tech, amoral purveyor[s] of death.” Doing so ignores the real motivation of our adversaries in decrying their use.
A significant advantage of RPA is that they allow us to project power without projecting vulnerability-something that can’t be done when ground forces are put in harm’s way. This capability provides us with an asymmetric advantage that our adversaries find difficult to counter. Because RPA are so effective, our enemies try to manipulate us to do what they cannot — limit the use of one of our asymmetric advantages – by spreading falsehoods that “drones” cause reckless collateral damage or are somehow not accurate.
The fact of the matter is that “drones” are one of, if not the most, accurate means of employing significant force in our military arsenal. Airpower, in the form of RPA, is the one allied capability that the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen, and around the globe cannot defeat directly. By creating international focus on civilian casualties, and attributing those casualties to “drones” vice the biggest cause of those casualties-themselves, they create political and societal pressure to limit the use of “drones.”
Adversary falsehoods regarding inaccuracy and collateral damage divert attention from the fact that the massive intentional damage, intentional killing of civilians, and intentional violations of international law are being conducted by Al Qaeda and the Taliban – not U.S. “drones.” Adding to the desired effects of adversary actions in decrying the use of “drones” is the inordinate amount of time and concern spent in recent commentary regarding the “rights” of traitors to America.
This “discourse” obscures the fact that Al Qaeda is at war with the U.S. That makes any member of Al Qaeda – U.S. citizen or not — an enemy combatant, and that makes them subject to engagement using lethal force. An American passport doesn’t allow anyone to take up arms against his own country and remain immune.
The recent frenzy associated with the supposed legal rights of traitors is a distraction from the fact that the Taliban are responsible for the death and maiming of most of the innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another disturbing implication of many of the “anti-drone” commentaries is that our standard of warfare should come from some form of “fairness” in dealing with our opponents.
War is not about “fairness;” it’s about inflicting damage on your enemy without suffering damage yourself. RPA provide one of those asymmetries for the U.S. today. The use of RPA has substantially boosted our effectiveness in accomplishing our critical national security objectives – with zero RPA operator casualties, at significantly less cost, and with significantly less collateral damage than have the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.
The anti-drone crowd keeps saying how much ill-will drones generate, but never discuss how much ill will the alternatives generate. If the people harboring Al Qaeda around the world don’t like drones, do you think they like U.S. boots on the ground more? That said, while introducing enormous capability and employment advantages, RPAs are not a panacea for warfare or replacements for our military services. But let’s not assist our adversaries by limiting our most effective weapon against Al Queda and the Taliban — the asymmetric advantage of our use of RPA.
Dave Deptula, a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors, is a retired Air Force lieutenant general. He was the first general in charge of Air Force intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, which included Remotely Piloted Aircraft. He directed air operations for Operation Enduring Freedom during the first combat use of a weapon fired from a drone in 2001. He is currently an independent consultant and senior military scholar at the Air Force Academy. Keep reading →
PENTAGON CITY: Hungry for answers on how to make more effective use of the tens of thousands of hours of video gathered by Predators, Global Hawks and other military eyes in the sky, Air Force officials recently visited NASCAR, the car racing people, to learn better and faster ways of mining video data.
“We have a lot of ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) information. We have too much ISR information,” Frank Konieczny, the service’s Chief Technology Officer, told a Monday lunch organized by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA). “We can tag the data, what latitude and longitude it has… but unless someone can quickly go through it on the spot we can’t correlate the data.” Most data is tagged by intelligence analysts or airmen days or weeks after a flight so it can be used for change detection analysis, to build more accurate maps or to add data to existing maps. Keep reading →
Why is the military’s elite research arm so interested in robots with legs? It isn’t speed.
Boston Dynamics’ Cheetah robot, funded by DARPA, made headlines after it broke its own speed record yesterday and became the first robot to run on legs faster than the fastest human, track star Usain Bolt. Cheetah got up to 28.3 miles per hour . Sure, that was on a treadmill in a lab, with an external brace to keep Cheetah from falling over; but other, much slower Boston Dynamics robots like the “Big Dog” have already solved the balance problem and can walk on their own four feet over rough ground, even ice. So the obvious next step is to combine the two technologies to build a well-balanced, fast-running robot. But why? Keep reading →
LAS VEGAS: The US military depends on drones. But amidst the justifiable excitement over the rise of the robots, it’s easy to overlook that today’s unmanned systems are not truly autonomous but rather require a lot of human guidance by remote control — and bad design often makes the human’s job needlessly awkward, to the point of causing crashes. Fixing that is the next big challenge for the unmanned industry.
“Too many screens with too much information, folks” — that’s the bottom line, said Col. John Dougherty, a Predator operations commander with the North Dakota National Guard, speaking at a workshop on the first day of 2012 conference of the Association for Unmanned Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) here in Vegas. “I am tired of all these black panels all over the place,” Dougherty went on, urging designers to “de-clutter for sanity.” But instead, he lamented, “they keep strapping the stuff on,” adding more and more sub-systems each with its own unique and user-unfriendly display. Keep reading →
WASHINGTON: The Air Force is holding off on filling the skies the next generation of the Reaper UAV. Instead of putting more aircraft into the air that gather more data, the service plans to focus on how to better manage the flood of raw intelligence already streaming in, says one top service officer.
The Air Force’s intelligence shop is putting development of the next-generation MQ-X unmanned aircraft on ice, opting to back fill its unmanned fleet with upgraded versions of the MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance chief Lt. Gen. Larry James said today.
The Air Force recently included plans to buy 24 new Reapers as part of the service’s fiscal 2013 budget request sent to Congress on Monday. Initially, service leaders had planned to replace the the Reaper with the MQ-X, once the plane was fully developed. The new drone would have been able to operate in heavily defended airspace. The current Reaper and its predecessor the MQ-1B Predator, are not durable enough to operate in what are known as anti-access/active denial (A2D2) areas. However, James said the suspension of the MQ-X was a “near-term” decision, indicating service leaders could bring the program back at a later date. That additional time will allow Air Force leaders to incorporate lessons learned from the Navy’s new Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator into the MQ-X, according to James. “It’s [the] prudent way to move forward.”
Until then, the Air Force’s No. 1 priority for ISR ops will be how to get the raw intel gathered from its aerial drones into the hands of service analysts faster, James said. Lack of commonality between the aerial drones collecting information from the battlefield and the systems designed to process that info continues to hamstring combat commanders. It has become a monumental task to shift data between the various unmanned systems and move them into the processing, exploitation and dissemination (PED) cycle, Rear Adm. Bill Shannon, the Navy’s program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, told Breaking Defense last week. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has tasked Air Combat Command and the Air Force Science Board to find ways to improve the PED process. Gone are the days when intel analysts would pour over aerial photographs taken by U-2 spy planes looking for surface-to-air missile sites, as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, James said. “This is not your father’s imagery analysis anymore,” he said.
Moving away from buying more unmanned aircraft and focusing on the fleet it already possesses represents a strategic shift by the Air Force, defense aviation expert Phil Finnegan says. A clear example of this is how the service handled its Reaper and Predator purchases in the fiscal 2013 budget. “Reaper purchases were cut from 48 last year to 24 this year while Gray Eagle purchases were reduced from 43 to 19,” Finnegan tells Breaking Defense. “That is because there has been a shift of focus in favor of improving the capabilities of the overall system by adding money for training and ground stations.” One example is how the service is looking to change way its network of Distributed Common Ground Stations moves data to service analysts.
The DCGS are the service’s primary nodes for collecting and sharing intel gathered by unmanned aircraft stationed across the globe. This new road map will help streamline how that info is stored, categorized and moved to intelligence analysts. Air Force leaders are also exploring how to better integrate “non-traditional” ISR assets — aircraft not originally designed to collect intel — into the PED, he said. That work is ongoing and will likely inform the service’s budget proposal for fiscal ’14, which is already in the works, James said.
WASHINGTON: Defense conferences rarely attract much notice from the American public but we saw a spark today as a demonstrator leapt onto the stage while Rep. Buck McKeon spoke in favor of a strong defense and robust funding for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
“These drones are playing God,” the slight, middle-aged woman shouted, trying to unfurl a homemade banner as two plainclothes security guards jumped onto the stage to remove her. “Every time we kill with drones we create enemies,” she yelled as the security guards carried her out of the conference. “Stop the killer drones!” (We wonder how many COIN experts would agree with her.) Keep reading →
Each generation has military platforms which define it. Inter-continental ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear propulsion submarines assumed that mantle during the Cold War. In the post-Cold War period, few military platforms have captivated the War on Terror generation like the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
Despite great success on the battlefield, American defense firms have found it difficult to generate significant export revenue from UAV platforms. This is because export of advanced U.S. military UAVs have traditionally fallen under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Category I export control restrictions. These restrictions strongly discourage export of such platforms to important buyer countries in Asia and the Middle East such as India, UAE, and Singapore.
As defense budgets decline worldwide, it is no secret that American defense firms are looking to break into growing markets in Asia and the Middle East to offset future revenue losses. But with American manufacturers unable to sell their advanced UAV technologies in these regions, that market share has gone largely to foreign manufacturers, including UAV exporters from Israel, Singapore, and South Africa.
That is about to change.Leading American UAV manufacturers have redesigned their existing military platforms to fall under the far less restrictive MTCR Category II. The redesigned UAVs will prove more competitive than previous non-U.S. military platforms offered by American manufacturers and their offshore subsidiaries, industry insiders say. The Obama Administration also appears increasingly supportive of the export of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance-only UAV platforms to select non-MTCR member states in Asia and the Middle East, including India.
General Atomics is one American UAV manufacturer hoping to win big in Asia and the Middle East. The company recently introduced an unarmed but potent MTCR Category II-governed offering, the Predator XP, designed for overseas buyers.
“The recent disclosure by the Administration (regarding their support of ISR-only UAV exports to non-MTCR countries) sparked our interest. Non-MTCR Category I countries have not been a focus for us. But, that changed recently when the U.S. Government gave export permission for the Predator XP. The differences are slight changes to the configuration which now make it Category II compliant. The Predator XP opens up new markets to us,” according to Christopher Ames, Director of Business Development at General Atomics.
One such market is India, which Ames acknowledges is a market of interest for his company. However, it is not the only emerging market that General Atomics hopes to enter into. For this reason, company executives are involved in a number of industry-led export control reform initiatives.
That said, the company is not all-in on emerging markets. The bulk of its international business development efforts remain focused on selling Category I-governed Predators to traditional MTCR member states in Europe and Asia.
In Asia, General Atomics continues to prioritize Predator B sales to Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Ames believes that these countries will emerge as major American UAV buyers as they seek to acquire new maritime accountability capabilities, including larger, more capable UAVs equipped with multi-mode maritime radar.
While General Atomics and other American UAV manufacturers recognize that traditional foreign manufacturers and new market entrants, particularly South Korean manufacturers, will challenge American UAV manufacturer dominance in contested markets, there is not a great deal of concern on the part of industry insiders. “We have a weather eye to both international and domestic competition,” says Ames. “Competition is going to grow in the future but we welcome competition. We have amassed 1.6 million hours of flight time though – about 42,000 hours are added per month. Competition will keep us innovative but we will introduce new disruptive changes.”