US Army Drone Roadmap 2035

"There have been many technologies introduced during this 8 1/2 years of war. However, I don't think any has made a greater impact than unmanned aircraft systems." - Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli, April 15 2013

The first page of the UAS Integrated Roadmap. Download the entire report here.

The US Army released its updated roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), planning ahead to the year 2035. The roadmap is updated every two years, and serves as a "strategic communication tool... for UAS development in terms of capability and employment." (US Army) The strategy is broken up into near-term (2010-2015), mid-term (2016-2025), and far-term (2026-2035). Here are the summarized goals stated by the Army's website for each phase.

• "Near-term: Continued rapid integration of UAS into tactical organizations meets the Warfighter's current combat requirements. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance are the dominant UAS capability requirements. Systems in the near-term include: Extended Range Multi Purpose (ERMP), Hunter, Shadow, and Raven UAS."
• "Mid-term: The Army fully integrates UAS. Technological advances increase AUS autonomy and support rapid and fluid operations. UAS resolution and net-centric force capability improve. Optionally piloted vehicles (OPV) and lighter than air (LTA) vehicles emerge to continue to bridge the gap between manned and unmanned capabilities."
• "Far-term: Technological advancements increase endurance and carrying capacity while size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements decrease. The Army leverages advanced vertical takeoff and landing, cargo, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) and Nano UAS Technology."
• "Why this is important: Army UAS are the 'eyes of the Army' and support the achievement of information dominance by providing the capability to quickly collect, process, and disseminate relevant information to reduce the sensor-to-shooter timeline."

Budgetary projections for unmanned systems, broken down by type and by research/development (RDTE), procurement (Proc), and operations and maintenance (OM) costs. The vast majority of funding continues to go toward unmanned air systems. Ground systems obtain roughly 1% the amount of funds granted to air systems. (Roadmap, page 3)

Interestingly, near-term plans have been heavily affected by the President's Budget, as it reduces available funds for UAS research and development, testing, evaluation and procurement (RDTE and Proc) by 33.4%. (Roadmap, v-vi) This has made cost-effectiveness an imperative in all military technology decisions in the foreseeable future. Changing political climates and combat operations in the Asia-Pacific Theater are heavily cited as driving forces in unmanned systems development. The Army proposes that it must consider methods by which unmanned systems will enter "more complex environments involving weather, terrain, distance, and airspace while necessitating extensive coordination with allies and host nations." (Roadmap, v) This reveals a great deal of information about where the military sees its attention shifting over the next two decades. Despite facing budgetary constraints, the Army remains optimistic about the progress of unmanned technology integration in the far-term.

"If the technical, logistics and sustainment, training, and cooperation challenges are addressed by accomplishing the projects and tasks described in this Roadmap, advances in capability and affordability can readily address the needs dictated by the plans, policies and operating environments. These advances will achieve well beyond what is attainable today." (Roadmap, vii)

Currently, the most deployed drones are small, handheld aerial battlefield devices seen in the "Group 1" category. The vast majority of deployed devices are multi-service, or shared between military branches. This trend will likely continue as budgets are constrained. (Roadmap, 5)

There is a clear trend toward nano UAS in the far-term. The Army seems to envision a greater need for drones under 20 lbs, and prefers this small size to advanced speed and maximum altitude. At a glance, it also seems that there are more plane-type models than copter models envisioned for deployment. (Roadmap, 6)

There will be a boost in nano robotics for unmanned ground vehicles as well for air systems. Interestingly, Boston Dynamics' quadropedal and bipedal UGV models do not appear as part of this diagram. (Roadmap, 7)

Developments in the UMS category seem less innovative than the UAS category, but the size of each device on average is greater. Nano robotics is not a focus in this area, and instead mine-clearing and maritime surveillance and security enforcement takes the lead. (Roadmap, 8)