emotely piloted aircraft of human control alters the concept of University team sponsored by the Offi ce of such as the MQ-9 Reaper legitimate action. Naval Research. These could even and RQ-4 Global Hawk are Discomfort persists. “Drones are a “act as objective, unblinking observers manned by squadrons of technological step that further isolates the on the battlefi eld, reporting any unethical pilots and sensor operators on the ground. American people from action,” behavior back to command,” they said in RFive or 10 years from now, however, law professor Mary L. Dudziak said, the report “Autonomous Military : that may no longer be the case, as full according to The New Yorker in a 2009 Risk, Ethics, and Design.” autonomy for air vehicles is well within article. The release of the November 2012 Taken to the extreme, autonomy theo- the Air Force’s technical reach. guidelines stirred calls for an executive retically enhances legitimacy. “Future According to USAF offi cials, artifi cial order stating that lethal and nonlethal generations may come to regard tactical intelligence and other technology advances attack with fully autonomous weapons warfare as properly the business of ma- will enable unmanned systems to make violates the law of war. chines and not appropriate for people at and execute complex decisions required Intriguingly, there is a vocal group on all,” noted Thomas K. Adams in a 2001 for full autonomy sometime in the decade the other side, too. These scientists see article for the US Army War College’s after 2015. autonomy as a means to reduce error journal Parameters, reprinted in 2011. Advances in information management, and enhance the legitimacy of the use of A consensus on the proper roles for vehicles, and weapons have opened the force. While some decry the growth of autonomy is lagging behind the techni- door to highly complex applications of autonomy, others have pointed out it can cal possibilities. For example, most in autonomy with far less human intervention subtract human weaknesses from combat. the debate agree that weapon autonomy in the mission timeline. Threat is a driver, Full-scale robots “would be unaffected by is more acceptable for self-defense of a too: Technical advances in autonomy can the emotions, adrenaline, and stress that fi xed air base or a platform such as an improve reaction time and chances for cause soldiers to overreact or deliberately aircraft carrier at sea. Automated close-in mission success in contested or denied overstep the rules of engagement,” hy- defensive fi res systems like the Phalanx 20 airspace. pothesized a California Polytechnic State mm gun were designed to search, track, The Pentagon says full speed ahead. In November 2012, then-Deputy Secre- tary of Defense Ashton B. Carter issued new guidelines on autonomous weapons development. The guidelines authorized combatant commanders to incorporate more weapon systems with autonomy into operational missions. The The intent was to pursue operational advantages and “allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment in the use of force,” according to the policy directive. Two more thumbs up came from the Autonomy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, By Rebecca Grant technology, and logistics, Frank Kendall III, and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James A. Winnefeld Question Jr., when they released an updated un- manned systems roadmap in 2013. “Autonomy in unmanned systems will Where should humans step aside be critical to future confl icts that will be fought and won with technology,” the and let the machines take over? roadmap noted. Autonomy refers to what a machine can do by itself. The concept started out as a way to reduce the workload of human operators by transferring partial operations to a machine process—e.g., an airplane’s autopilot mode.

Dark and Light Autonomy technologies stand to make a major difference in the contested bat- tlespace—but they will be contested in public debate, too. Increasing levels of autonomy stir controversy when they touch on deep-seated fears and values surrounding the use of force. At issue is whether repositioning the elements

44 AIR FORCE Magazine / April 2014 Question Autonomy The AIR FORCE Magazine cannot be avoided. employment of autonomous weapons a fig leaf. Questions about offensive defensive weaponwillsoonbetoosmall is that sanctioning autonomy only as a a specified period of time? The point does the input have to take place within parameters skate under the barrier, or human commanderssetthemission system fit the criteria? Would having missile launch site by an autonomous blur. Does pre-emptive attack against a life are considered well within bounds. self-defense systems to protect human installations. In other words, automated critical or saturation attacks on manned Phalanx whenthey areusedtothwart time- supervised semiautomatic weapons like rent DODpolicy explicitly approves more than 100 intercepts by 2010. Cur- forward operating bases in Iraq recorded Phalanx systems deployed extensively at and engage automatically. Land-based Problems arisewhenthosedistinctions By RebeccaGrant / April 2014 before it, autonomy puts USAF again at nologies. As withmany technologies policy issues surrounding autonomy tech- engaged with both the operational and efficiency in the loop. There’s every chance to keep ethics and force commander’s mission and intent. a larger framework of the human joint Autonomous operationswillremainwithin Force. But the team’s insight is broader. act) Loop as an obvious choice for the Air the OODA (observe, orient, decide, and for metrics?” The AFRL team pointed to look atthehumaneffectiveness community Machines replace humans—so why not will, to replace pilot decision functions. are designing algorithms, agents if you metrics. “The great insight was this: We on the challenge of setting up autonomy Air Force Research Laboratory team took ation and discipline. Writing in 2002, an autonomous systems to blue-suit evalu- Expect the Air Force tobeclosely One way ahead could be to subject

USN photo by Mass Communications Spec. 3rd Class William Weinert fi nding the appropriate cognitive level DOD Systems.” the report, “The Role of Autonomy in their value to DOD operations,” stated autonomous capabilities,have proven vehicle technologies, even with limited autonomy is here to stay. “Unmanned of defense. The starting point was that commissioned by the deputy secretary Board completed a study of autonomy the mission timeline. decrease the human crew intervention in applications of autonomy could greatly to fully autonomous systems. The next be seen as just a waypoint on the road notoriety, the Predator/Reaper family can level of autonomous systems. For all their operations. MQ-1 Predator reliable enough for routine guidance that made systems such as the the wide availability of precision the mid-1990’s advances in software and and during the Vietnam War, but it was Autonomous aircraft were flown prior to of autonomy developed quite recently. again today. reasoning, and judgment—as most would the advantage in improvisation, inductive today. However, Fitts also gave humans would probably be awarded to machines light and faint sounds. Both categories periods of time and in perception of dim humans the edge in storing data for long technology of the early 1950s, Fitts gave “Machines Are Better At.” Based on the ing “Men Are Better At” and five more as and machines.” of dividing responsibility between men list as “a general answer to the problem air traffic control when he developed his and machine head-on. Fitts was studying addressed the distinction between man ogy professor Paul M. Fitts in 1951. It on autonomy was proposed by psychol- mans at many tasks. An early guideline machines may be more skillful than hu- or phase of mission.” of autonomy as appropriate for the type will retain the ability to change the level Flight Plan 2009-2047” put it: “Humans Air Force’s “Unmanned Aircraft Systems art of warfare. the leading edge of major changes in the USS Monterey. Phalanx’s 20 mm gun is test-fired from and destroy incoming threats. Here, a Phalanx systems autonomously track The study thenraised the issueof In summer 2012, the Defense Science The real dilemma is not the current Military operations with higher levels Fitts grouped six tasks under the head- Researchers have long understood that Thus, humans remain in control. As the 45 for handoffs between human control and would make it possible to filter out hu- but added restrictions against targeting software autonomy. The DSB report also man control through most or all mission humans. The guidelines also built in a acknowledged that “allocations may vary segments. safeguard by mandating that autonomous by mission phase as well as echelon.” Why push for more autonomy? It may systems “complete engagements in a Notably, all current DOD unmanned be essential to completing missions in a time frame consistent with commander systems are remotely operated; they can contested environment. and operator intentions, and if unable default to true automation only briefly Reapers over Afghanistan operated in a to do so, terminate engagements or seek and “in extreme circumstances, such relatively permissive environment under additional human operator input before as a lost link condition,” as DOD puts full control of human operators using satel- continuing the engagement.” it. Making the distinction “is important lite links. Full autonomy in various types Programming in the commander’s because our community vernacular often of air vehicles may be needed if satellite intent could extend a long leash to autono- uses the term ‘autonomy’ to incorrectly links between unmanned aircraft and mous missions. Under broad interpretation describe automated operations,” the their remote operator crews are hacked or of this concept, human input sets param- report chided. disrupted. Remote operators can maintain eters but hands off final task execution The debate on autonomy is likely to near-constant contact with unmanned decisions to autonomous systems. heat up. The near future holds both tech- systems in a permissive environment. That may seem a bold step. But grow- nological advances and mission require- However, rapid, autonomous execution ing threats could urge it along. ments that will keep the spotlight on this of part of a mission could be invaluable The US is not the only nation pursu- development. against anti-access systems. ing autonomy. According to the DSB, it Just what does increased performance In the case of an unmanned aircraft is also time for the US to plan explicitly of autonomous flight technology portend switching to autonomous mode in denied for adversary use of autonomous systems. for the Air Force? Autonomy could spread airspace, independent operation might Likewise, the 2012 directive on autonomy in several ways and USAF is poised to be also permit the aircraft to make onboard stipulates that systems “function as antici- at the center of it. decisions about its sensor operations based pated in realistic operational environments The first application will be greater on weather, mission priorities, etc. The against adaptive adversaries.” autonomy for individual vehicles. More fusion of intelligence and surveillance than a decade ago, researchers at AFRL information has made this a near-term Forming Up led by Bruce T. Clough defined a fully prospect. Another step in autonomy goes beyond autonomous system this way: “The UAV Under this concept, speed improves what one single aircraft can do. In the [] receives goals as autonomous systems detect, process, near future, autonomous systems could from the humans and translates that into and act on the information. Additional also engage in collaboration. Passive, tasks, which it does without human inter- autonomy would be an advantage. A con- line-of-sight links have been explored vention. The UAV has authority to make tested, denied access environment could by researchers as a means to control un- all decisions.” require more autonomy just to complete manned formations either from a manned Systems are close to employing dy- the kill chain. “lead” aircraft or from another unmanned namic tasking where the vehicle itself can It’s possible that unmanned aircraft may vehicle. The goal is for followers to select its next move. The most advanced be tasked to acquire targets and release maintain relative range while the leader vehicles like Global Hawk already have weapons. The Pentagon’s 2012 policy left maneuvers. Software in the loop deter- programmed in subroutines that can cover the door open for autonomous targeting mines the guidance inputs. significant portions of their missions. Gen- eral Atomics Aeronautical Systems notes the Predator B can be flown as remotely piloted or “fully autonomous.” Recognizing this, the Air Force laid out goals for full mission autonomy for air vehicles in the 2009 UAS flight plan. Milestones such as autonomous flight, automatic target engagement, and com- mand of autonomy were anticipated for the 2015 to 2025 time period. Dynamic tasking would permit au- tomatic selection of flight and mission profiles by the aircraft itself. Crucial steps in the autonomy chain include avoiding collision, detecting other air vehicles, in- flight diagnostics, and mission replanning. While the choice could be monitored, the decision inputs would be carried out onboard the aircraft. Doing more onboard

Airmen move an MQ-9 Reaper at Kan- dahar Airfield, Afghanistan, in prepara- tion for a mission in 2013. Autonomous flight and automatic target engage- ment may be coming.

46 AIR FORCE Magazine / April 2014 Success in automated air refueling is a and Navy future air dominance project, Dealing with data faster has obvious harbinger of more autonomy. However, the said Defense Advanced Research Projects military advantages. The Air Force has trick in recent tests has been for software Agency Director Arati Prabhakar in April been hinting at this revolution for quite to grasp and react correctly to the many at the Pentagon. some time. minute inputs generated by two vehicles Similarly, the Obama Administration’s Former Chief of Staff Gen. John P. in close flight. The next step is formation concept for a new long-range strike family Jumper spoke often of the need for a self- flight of two, four, or more air vehicles. of systems includes teaming between a forming, self-healing network to maximize All of this is within reach. The Air manned or optionally manned bomber and command of data. In 2004, he described Force’s 2009 unmanned aircraft systems an unmanned strike or electronic warfare the value of data as seen in Operation flight plan summed up specific projections platform. As the manned–unmanned in- Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. “Now, that for progress on technologies such as “see terface moves into the mainstream, MUM networking was crude,” said Jumper. “It and avoid.” raises second-order issues. Long segments was machine-to-machine interfaces, but “The same technologies that keep UAS of flight in collaborative formation with it was crude.” Airmen did it “on the chat from any airborne collision will also enable profile changes would practically consti- networks at the speed of typing, not the UAS formation flight,” the report said. tute an autonomous mission fleet. speed of light.” Teams of multiple vehicles coordi- So far, the autonomy discussion has Part of the answer, of course, is more nating movements without the constant centered on vehicles. However, operating autonomy. The requirement for autonomy intervention from human controllers is an a platform with no crew on board is not in information stems first from the sheer alluring concept of operations. Research the only mode for autonomy. It also holds mass of data—which, coincidentally, was laboratories have already tested autono- possibilities further up the command and generated in large part by the plethora of mous formation flight of small, unmanned control chain—specifically, in autonomous unmanned systems. vehicles, for example. adaptive planning. Sensor and intelligence Rapidly making sense of this data Of course, a group of autonomous data processing may need to increase re- requires more automated processing. vehicles has to stay in sync—one of liance on autonomy routines to perform Referring back to the Fitts criteria, there the most difficult technical hurdles. The operations at a faster pace. is little question that the machine can system as a whole will have to verify that The capability for such an application perform data matches more quickly than the vehicles are receiving a single set of isn’t in doubt. Machines have long since human analysts. Then there is the un- commands and executing them correctly. demonstrated their prowess as logic tools. structured information generated as text, Tactical mastery might come first as The computer Deep Blue beat champion video, social media, and more. The key is a partnership between manned and un- Garry Kasparov at chess way back in 1997. to add automated layers of data process- manned systems. The first application It would not be far-fetched to assign to ing that conform to mission needs and for fully autonomous vehicles could be a machine the flow of forces, logistics, present actionable information as quickly within the manned-unmanned interface initial shaping operations, and even de- as possible. often abbreviated as MUM. The interface cisive operations in the campaign plan. This could be the second source of is already part of plans for next genera- (Computers already handle primary joint demand for more autonomy. In the 2000s, tion systems. logistics processes.) The reason for doing faster data processing enabled counterter- For example, “we’re talking about so could be speed of planning, eliminating rorism operations—but they unfolded over how manned and unmanned systems fatigue, or even just spitting out dozens of long periods of time in permissive airspace might work together” on an Air Force campaign plans for possible comparison. and uncluttered electronic environments. To be sure, there are still many technical hurdles to clear as autonomy advances. Certain key enablers must USAF photo USAF be available in order to realize the full benefits of autonomy, according to DOD. The list includes mission planning that is easy to change, guaranteed precision navigation, and timing; better cross- cueing by sensors both on an offboard; and the major issue of how and when to disseminate data from autonomous systems to others engaged in a battle. Efficient use of bandwidth for data transmission is another major concern. Add in contested environments, false targets, and an information-savvy foe and the need for autonomous informa- tion processing could grow by leaps and bounds. n

Rebecca Grant is president of IRIS In­ dependent Research. Her most recent article for Air Force Magazine was “How Many Aircrew?” in the January issue.

AIR FORCE Magazine / April 2014 47