The use of small unmanned aerial systems is on the rise, within both the civilian and government sectors.
The military is jumping on the small UAS train to fill critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance gaps at the tactical edge.
Col. Eldon Metzger, program manager for the Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Naval Air Systems Command
Bringing [quadcopters] in of varying sizes from nano up to larger systems adds to the toolkit from which the Marines can operate.
If I'm operating in a densely urban environment … a fixed-wing system may have to be pushed to a little bit higher orbit, and you don't always necessarily have eyes on the target. But a quadcopter or a [vertical takeoff and landing] system gives you that perspective to maintain eyes onto those targets.
Are you in a procurement process to acquire some of those systems right now?
Under a [universal need statement] for the Marine Corps, we are procuring a complement of VTOL systems for field users evaluation for the Marine Corps.
In your presentation, there was a lot on Group 1 and Group 3 UAS, but you also said there are a lot of opportunities on Group 2. Can you elaborate on those opportunities?
Within a Group 2 system, once we get past that 20-pound up to that 50-pound [or] 70-pound system, you can potentially push the systems further in range and/or payload capacity. So there are certain things within that Group 2 that the services are looking at in terms of being able to maintain the smaller logistical footprint and maintain more of an expeditionary edge.
What I mean by expeditionary edge: When you get into the larger Group 2 systems or Group 3 systems, you get into launch and recovery assets. So with a Group 2 system, you can potentially still maintain a small footprint and be able to recover the systems.
That could either be a fixed-wing plan form, a hybrid plan form or a VTOL. We're just looking at different things available out there to meet different [concepts of operation, or CONOPs], or [concepts of employment] that we would employ using those systems.
Within those CONOPs, what are the units in terms of size both from a Marine Corps and Navy perspective you'd be looking to integrate these Group 2 systems within?
Those could go straight into Marine Corps units to complement the Group 1 systems that we have out there.
The specific requirements that we're looking for right now, we're kind of keeping close hold. Right now it's just primarily with industry and [we are] looking at what's available.
Can you touch on how pushes for these new systems and new CONOPs fit in both with the new multi-domain battle concept white paper the Marines adopted with the Army, as well as the new operating concept the commandant published a few months ago?
The [Marine Operating Concept] is driving some of this. As we look at what is the overall vision, what is that strategy, based upon those requirements, some of those are derived requirements as we look at how we shape and support the Marine Corps.
We are taking … an active role in looking at which platform and does it meet [what the MOC is trying to achieve]?
We don't want to overlap capability; we want to make sure that whatever we're doing we have the depth and capability.
Is that based upon exercises, war games and threats observed? Are you noticing there might be a gap in ISR from the tactical edge to integrate some of these Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 [systems], where you need more assets that have better dwell or better endurance?
Yes. From a CONOP-type perspective … yes, there have been exercises where we looked at how the squads employ Group 1, how that feeds into the information or intelligence flow to the tasking of a Group 2 or Group 3 system, and how that develops further into whether it goes kinetic. … Each system builds onto that next.
Group 1 really ties into that true tactical edge as the eyes, the ears and whether different payloads are on it to the individual unit.
We have seen in different exercises where a complement of systems is worth having. That's why we're looking at the VTOL system to complement the SURSS program to the fixed-wing systems.
The 2017 Marine Corps Aviation Plan outlined a large role for UAS in electronic warfare within the Marine Air Ground Task Force. Can you speak to that and some of the cyber considerations in terms of hardening devices to prevent interference or jamming?
I'll go in reverse order. [Naval Air Systems Command] instituted CYBERSAFE as part of our flight clearance process. So with any airborne asset that goes out, we look at cyber as a potential threat. Again, it's based upon the size of that platform and where it fits into the overall CONOPs.
What a larger Group 5 system has to be able to test to and show … is different for a small Group 1 asset. But that is part of the mindset or construct now that we do look at cyber.
To the overall plan of electronic warfare assets — PMA-234 is that portion that does the EW side. We do look at payloads, specifically for Group 1 to Group 3 assets.
Those payloads feed into the different portion of the CONOPs. … And there are other payloads that we're looking at and working on, but I don't go any further than that. Again, as it goes open source, it becomes open source.
Mark Pomerleau is a reporter for C4ISRNET, covering information warfare and cyberspace.
